Our treasonous war-criminal president’s policies have set America up quite nicely for a major terrorist attack, perhaps of a much wider scope than the recent attacks in Paris. These include everything from a refusal to even rhetorically associate Islamic terrorism with Muslims, to the nationwide Syrian refugee drop, to the clandestine importation of Muslims from destabilized nations in the Middle East and Africa, to an absolute refusal to effectively monitor who comes and goes in this country.
Americans will die, and despite his feigned outrage after the fact, it will have been due to the deliberate intention of Barack Hussein Obama.
A nation like ours does not go from respecting personal liberties and the rule of law to “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone” overnight. Are there really so many ethically compromised individuals in our government that there is no hope for any among them finally deciding to exercise the rule of law and remove this tyrant? Are they just cowards, willing to let Obama touch off World War III rather than risk the Black Lives Matter crowd setting America ablaze for “taking down” our precious first black president on account of his proclivity for treason and crimes against humanity?
Or are they, as some suspect, party to a much broader agenda, perhaps one rooted in the belief that our planet’s human population cut by three-fourths – even overnight – would be much better for everyone going forward?
Seven years into his presidency Barack Obama finally found his mojo and declared war!
Americans were astonished that within three weeks of the bloody Paris attacks, the U.S. leader dropped everything to jet to the city where the carnage occurred and, after laying a rose at the Bataclan Concert Hall, spoke persuasively to 150 world leaders.
This usually mild-mannered man was extraordinarily forceful when he urged those assembled to “take action” in order to save the world against a growing threat that “could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.”
Obama did not mince words when he warned nations large and small that “there is such a thing as being too late!”
Our 44th president astonished those present when he boldly proclaimed, “The United States not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it!”
What clarity! What decisiveness!
Unfortunately, this call to arms was not against the Islamic State, which is gobbling up land in the Middle East at an alarming rate and sending its followers to the West to wage war on the civilized nations of the world. It was, alas, a call to battle an unproved theory of global warming.
In featuring this clip, even C-SPAN headlined it, “Did President Obama Just Admit He Was Muslim?” The video deserves to be watched. Obama emphasized the “we.”
This is not the first time Obama has opened the closet door on a possible double life. WND has well chronicled his flirtations with the Prophet.
Most notoriously, on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama fueled the debate on his religious inclinations with a gaffe, Kinsley or otherwise, when he said to ABC's George Stephanopoulos, "You are absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."
The ever-protective Stephanopoulos corrected him with a sotto voce "Christian faith," and Obama went with the correction. This was hardly the right time for Obama to "out" himself as anything but a straight, patriotic, Christian, middle-of-the-roader.
In his final year of the presidency, we may get to meet the real Obama, and God only knows what form that reality will take.
If he is in a confessional mood, I am just hoping Obama will reveal who did the real writing on "Dreams from My Father."
Barack Obama continues his seven-year run as the nation’s top firearm salesman, raising the question in many Americans’ minds whether they might be facing their last chance to purchase the guns they want. Mass shootings and terrorism, along with the Democratic Party’s open embrace of gun control as a campaign issue, are assisting Obama’s unintended effort to push gun sales to new records.
Barack Hussein Obama hasn’t the courage to call militant Islam the enemy – which it is – because he favors Islam. Regardless of the reason, the result is clear. He is on their side, not on ours. In fact, with all the attacks on the West by militant Islam worldwide, Obama has never used the words militant Islam in connection with terrorism and almost never uses the word terrorism.
Newt Gingrich, historian and former speaker of the House, said last week, “Barack Obama is the greatest national security threat to ever occupy the White House.”
I agree. Obama’s inaction leaves the door wide open for terrorists – whether by a massive attack or smaller random attacks – to have their way with us.
Experts say, without hesitation, we will be attacked again.
Come on, Americans: Are you willing to see a smoking Washington or New York or maybe have this terror come to your backyard?
We’re living on borrowed time – and the clock is ticking.
Barack Obama is ignoring the ringing alarm. Wake him up or replace him.
Obama assured America that his administration would be the most transparent one in history. Specific to that point in the aftermath of another act of Muslim terrorism, there are three things glaringly transparent: 1) Obama favors Muslims terrorists over Americans; 2) Obama is not inclined to hide his affections for terrorists over Americans; and 3) for all of President Roosevelt’s negatives, thank God Obama wasn’t in office when Pearl Harbor was attacked.
As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us knows one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.
We are all aware of the lack of incontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing has been spectacularly successful.
There are, however, several additional oddities in Obama's history that appear to be as well managed as his own birth issue. For example, due to a lack of transparency there are questions about the birth records of his own daughters.
It's also interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign certainly would, in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself.
It's virtually impossible to know anything definitive about this fellow.
Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.
When did he meet Michelle, and how? Are there photos there? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their libraries. What has he released?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc.?
Not one person has ever come forward from his past. It certainly is very, very strange.
This should be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man.
Obama has never successfully run a candy store, yet Americans stand down and allows him to destroy their country.
For many American citizens, the murder of nearly 3,000 of our own on 9/11 by Muslim fanatics was a wake-up call. The naïve way many of us had viewed the world melted under shattering reality in the space of one chilling morning.
Unfortunately, after the immediate shock passed, most went back to sleep and stayed asleep. Just seven years later, a man with a Muslim name and sympathies, Barack Hussein Obama, was elected president, and four years later, was re-elected. Now after Paris and San Bernardino, it couldn’t be clearer that he sides with the enemy. God help us.
Terry Jeffrey's Hypocritical (And Dishonest) Anti-D.C. Snobbery Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor Terry Jeffrey had a huge fit of anti-Washington snobbery this week. First, there was a Dec. 9 article in which he wrote:
Five of the nation's Top Ten wealthiest counties--when measured by median household income in 2014--are suburbs of Washington, D.C.; and the three wealthiest are all in suburban Virginia, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.
Falls Church, Va.--an independent city which the Census counts as a county--led the nation with a median household income of $125,635 in 2014.
Loudon County, Va., was second with a median household income of $122,641.
Fairfax County, Va., was third with a median household income of $110,507.
The “county” that the Census Bureau reported yesterday had the highest median household income in the nation in 2014 is disproportionately populated by people who work for the government.
The City of Falls Church, Va.--which the Census Bureau treats as a “county” because it is an independent city that is not a part of any county—had a median household income of $125,635 in 2014.
That put it first on the Census Bureau’s list of the 30 counties in the nation with the highest median incomes.
In the five-year period from 2010-2014, according to the Census Bureau’s estimate, there were 7,290 Falls Church City residents 16 and older who were employed.
2,389 of these—or 32.8 percent—worked for government.
Nationwide, during the same time period, only 14.6 percent of workers were employed by government.
Thus, workers in the nation’s wealthiest county were more than twice as likely as workers nationwide to be employed by government.
Of course, this is nothing but read-meat government-bashing for the benefit of CNS' right-wing readers (and, hopefully, a few traffic-driving clicks). But Jeffrey isn't telling you the whole story -- like how utterly hypocritical his sneering attacks are.
CNS and its parent organization, the Media Research Center, are headquarted in Reston, Va. -- located in Fairfax County, the third-wealthiest U.S. county that Jeffrey was mocking. And Reston is just a 12-mile drive from Falls Church, Va., which is located in the middle of Fairfax County.
Reston, being located in that wealthy county, is not too shabby on the median income front -- $110,321 according to the Census Bureau. So the denizens of CNS' hometown are living quite well.
As is Jeffrey. We don't know where exactly Jeffrey lives in the Washington area, but with a salary of $122,400 in 2011 -- which has surely increased since then -- he can easily afford a place in Falls Church. Indeed, the salaries paid to all top MRC officials help to prop up that lofty median salary in Fairfax County.
Further, Jeffrey's sneering assertion that "workers in the nation’s wealthiest county were more than twice as likely as workers nationwide to be employed by government" is utterly dishonest. It's ridiculous for Jeffrey to express surprise that a town near the capital of the most powerful country in the world has a large number of government workers.
Also, notice that Jeffrey offers no breakdown of the income of government workers vs. private sector workers in Falls Church. It's entirely possible, if not likely, that the salaries of these private-sector workers are what's driving up the median salary there. If he can't do that, all he's doing is smearing government workers.
If Jeffrey feels so strongly about this and looks down on his fellow Fairfax County residents so severely, why doesn't he talk his boss, Brent Bozell into moving the MRC far out of the Washington area, to that "flyover country" heartland conservatives speak so highly of? Or stop playing the Washington game he purports to despise and leave CNS -- and his six-figure salary -- behind?
Obama Derangement At Its Finest, Courtesy of AIM's Kincaid: 'Is Our Stoner President Mentally Impaired?' Topic: Accuracy in Media
It's hard to fine a better distallation of Obama Derangement Syndrome than Cliff Kincaid's Dec. 7 Accuracy in Media column, starting with the headline "Is Our Stoner President Mentally Impaired?" Let's see if we can pick the highlights and not excerpt the entire column in the process:
Members of Congress concerned about America’s survival have shied away from impeaching President Obama on national security grounds. They either think impeachment would take too long or that the political process of impeaching the first black Democratic President would be too polarizing. There is an alternative: removing Obama from office because of cognitive impairment.
Rather than accuse Obama of being a secret Muslim blinded by Marxist ideology, perhaps the way for Congress to save our nation is to invoke the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution dealing with presidential disabilities. This amendment allows Congress to review whether or not the president is able to discharge the powers and duties of his office. If it is determined that he is not, then he can be replaced. A case can be made that he is so affected by previous drug use that he is just not capable of comprehending reality. As a former member of the “Choom Gang” of heavy marijuana users, Obama seems indifferent to the facts on the ground concerning the Muslim terrorist threat.
The charge that Obama has been impaired by marijuana is not made lightly. Interestingly enough, however, a new study has just been released regarding the “psychosis-like effects” of marijuana.
Obama is, presumably, not smoking marijuana in the White House. But he talks and acts as if he is still under the influence. Indeed, the long-term impact of the weed on his intellectual processes is a subject of concern. David Maraniss, author of a book on Obama, notes that the word “choom,” taken from “Choom Gang,” means to smoke marijuana. He said Obama “started a few pot-smoking trends,” suggesting the future president understood ways to make the “high” from the drug even more powerful and lasting. One method they used was to smoke dope in a car and then inhale or suck in what was left of the smoke in the ceiling of the car.
What Maraniss leaves out of his book on Obama is the role played by Obama’s mentor, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, another dope smoker who probably gave the young Barry some tips on inhaling the drug for full effect. Davis, a pedophile, probably also taught young Barry about experimenting with sex.
If Congress doesn’t want to find Obama guilty of having an ideology that explains his sympathy for radical Islam and disqualifies his continued service as President, the only alternative is to diagnose his medical condition with public hearings and conclude that he has lost touch with reality and is mentally ill. A Congressional Research Service study cites evidence that section four of the 25th amendment is designed for “a sick president who refuses or is unable to confront his disability,” or “a president who is disabled but unwilling to step aside.”
This section is complicated, but it explicitly allows for Congress to establish a committee or another body to review the president’s disability and recommend his removal from office. It refers to several ways the president can be removed, including through a body “as Congress may by law provide.” This would begin the process of congressional action.
The main objection will be that using Obama’s dope-smoking days against him is going back too far in his life to justify his removal from office. But many observers see that something is seriously wrong with this President’s approach to his job. Blaming his performance on the lingering effects of the heavy use of illegal drugs makes as much sense as any other explanation at this point.
Indeed, with impeachment on ideological grounds off the table, it is within the jurisdiction of Congress to decide that Obama has done enough damage to the nation and the world and that he must go. Since Obama seems to be AWOL in the War on Terror, dereliction of duty by Congress in this case would only increase the danger and risk to the nation.
Poor Cliff Kincaid. His ODS just makes this way too easy.
WND Already Pushing Conspiracy Theories In San Bernardino Shooting Topic: WorldNetDaily
There are few things WorldNetDaily loves more than a good conspiracy theory, and it's going full conspiracy mode on the San Bernadino shootings.
WND was already conspiracy-mongering just a couple of days after the shooting in a Dec. 4 column by Stu Tarlowe (italics in original):
Are we now a nation of the arithmetically challenged?
Anyone who’s ever owned a dog will concur with this: If you think a dog can’t count, try putting three dog biscuits in your pocket, and give him only two.
Apparently, even a dog can count better than the Obama regime, its “authorities,” its sycophant media and all but a teeny-tiny percentage of the American public.
Because, after almost a full day, Wednesday, of reports (including those from eyewitnesses) of three perpetrators in the attack in San Bernardino, plus hours of reports of police searching for three suspects in a black SUV and then, having dispatched two of them in a gun battle, still searching for the third (including reports that a third individual was being “detained”), suddenly Thursday came and went with nary a mention of any suspect other than Sayed Farook and Tashfeen Malik.
Overnight, three had become merely two.
Who is Stu Tarlowe? We have no idea, though he appears to have an extensive archive of articles at the far-right-fringe American Thinker website. WND's end-of-column bio for Tarlowe describes him only as "a native New Yorker living in the Heart of America" whose "pantheon of heroes and role models" includes not only domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy but domestic terrorist Meir Kahane, whose Kach movement and its successor, Kahane Chai, are banned in Israel for inciting racism and violence and considered terrorist organizations in the U.S.
With such an impeccable source to go on, WND executive news editor Joe Kovacs devoted a Dec. 9 article to pushing the third-shooter conspiracy:
A week after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, that killed 14 people and left 21 injured, some are wondering whatever happened to the supposed third shooter that witnesses say shot up the Inland Regional Center.
The two Muslim suspects who were killed in a police shootout have been identified as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who were reportedly planning the deadly assault a year in advance.
But witnesses on the day of the Dec. 2 massacre insisted there were three shooters.
Kovacs goes on to cite Rush Limbaugh, among other right-wingers, approvingly pushing this conspiracy.
Leo Hohmann piled on in a Dec. 10 article, invoking not only the third-shooter conspiracy but also other "lingering questions about how the incident occurred and the way it is being handled by the FBI." Hohmann wants to know "why there has been no video footage" of the shooting released, why reporters were allowed to go "traipsing through the apartment" of shooters Syed Farook and his "jihadist wife" so soon after investigators were done with it, and why the Council for American-Islamic Relations held a press conference denouncing the shooting "before the FBI even ruled the crime to be an act of terrorism."
Needless to say, the whole third-shooter conspiracy has been debunked; the San Bernardino Sun reports that the so-caled third shooter sought immediately after the shooting was actually someone fleeing the area of the final gun battle, possibly for his own safety. He was caught and detained, but was determined to not have been involved. Since the man did nothing wrong (but was booked on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant), authorities aren't releasing his name.
Don't expect WND to tell you any of this or, if it does, to present it at face value. Those conspiracy theories, discredited as they may be, are what keeps the rubes coming to the website.
Oops: Anti-Muslim Activists Fall For Fake Story Topic: Accuracy in Media
A story at the Free Wood Post, claiming that "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has officially designated Donald Trump and his campaign as a hate group," has captured the attention of anti-Muslim activist (and member of the Accuracy in Media's increasingly discredited "Citizens' Commission on Benghazi") Clare Lopez:
Lopez's tweet was approvingly quoted by another anti-Muslim activist and right-wing favorite, Frank Gaffney:
Just one problem with the story: it's a fake.
The first clue is the banner on the Free Wood Post website, which proclaims "news that's almost reliable." There's also a prominent link to a "satire disclaimer" at the top of the page, which states: "Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction."
We found nothing on the SPLC website designating the Trump campaign as a hate group, though it has criticized the "extreme, anti-Muslim rhetoric" peddled by Trump and Gaffney, among others.
If Lopez and Gaffney fall so easily for fake stories, that doesn't say much about their supposed expertise in bashing Muslims.
The latest study shows that 15 percent female freshmen are raped their first year at college or university.
It’s a shocking statistic.
But it gets worse.
These freshman women are raped, according to the study, while they are incapacitated by drug or alcohol use.
But still it gets worse.
Do you realize that many colleges and universities don’t require – and even discourage – that local police departments investigate rapes, preferring that reports are merely filed with campus police?
Still it gets worse.
Do you realize the federal government spends tens of millions of your hard-earned tax dollars on programs telling students how to reduce sexual assaults but never mentions even once that excessive drinking is the leading factor in campus rapes?
How is this possible?
The answer is “political correctness.”
If the statistics are right, then college campuses, run by the most “progressive” minds in the country, are the least safe place for young women in America. To me, any parent who believes the statistics would be out of his or her mind sending his or her daughter off to college.
What Farah won't tell you: Rape and alcohol are also problems at private Christian schools, including the one to which Farah sent at least one of his daughters.
The New Republic reported last year about issues of rape at Patrick Henry College, a homeschooler-friendly right-wing Christian school in exurban Washington D.C. -- close enough to Farah's home in wealthy Fairfax County, Va., that at least one of his daughters, Alyssa, attended college there. According to the New Republic, Patrick Henry has a rather callous attitude toward female students who have been sexually assaulted, tending to blame the victim, especially if she had been drinking, and failing to hold of the alleged male perpetrators accountable for their actions.
An independent review of the allegations conducted by the school's alumni association found that the school officials had stonewalled the investigation and misled about the number of sexual assaults involving students, and that half of Patrick Henry students don't understand that nonconsensual behavior is a key component of sexual assault.
This investigation may or may not have played a role in the abrupt resignation of college president Graham Walker a couple months after the independent review came out. (Walker's rampant homophobia that stood out at a place already notoriously unfriendly to gays and an overall authoritarian attitude that included threatening journalism students out of reporting an unflattering story about a professor at the school probably didn't help matters either.)
But as we noted, you didn't read about this story at WND. Why? Farah is a huge booster of the school -- he even devoted a column to begging readers to donate to it -- and its founder and chancellor, Michael Farris, is close enough to Farah that at one point he had his own WND column. One WND article touted how the school has "Ivy League-caliber scholastics paired with a distinctly Christian worldview." The author of that article? Alyssa Farah.
Are parents equally out of their minds to send their daughters to a school with as callous an attitude toward victims of sexual assault as Patrick Henry College has been demonstrated to have? Farah doesn't seem to want to answer that question.
CNSNews.com has long had an obsession with specific words President Obama says, or doesn't say. Thus, we get things like this Dec. 6 blog post by Lauretta Brown and Katie Yoder:
President Obama showed solidarity with the nation’s No. 1 abortion provider this weekend by expressing that America is “a people who stand up for the rights of women to make their own decisions about their health,” according to a statement that never once mentioned "abortion."
In case you were wondering, Yoder doesn't work for CNS proper; she's technically an employee of its parent organization, the Media Research Center. Which tells us that CNS is ceasing to be an actual "news" organization (if it ever was one) and is now becoming more than the MRC in journalese.
WND Movie Reviewer: Pixar Short Promotes 'Demonic' Hindu Religion Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily movie reviewer Drew Zahn didn't like the new Pixar film "The Good Dinosaur," though for reasons a lot of reviewers didn't like it: "The characters are shallow, the writing simplistic, the humor too sparse, the action too heavy … and the story is just not up to par." He wasn't even that bothered by the film's "evolutionary premise."
The short that preceded the film, on the other hand, Zahn found much more problematic:
Even more troublesome, is the animated short that immediately precedes the film, “Sinjay’s Superteam.” The story takes place in a Hindu household, where the father kneels before his prayer box, but his son resists joining him. But then the boy has a vision of the Hindu gods coming to life and battling a Hindu demon, thus seeing the gods like his new, favorite superheroes.
On one hand, it’s a touching story of a son adopting his father’s faith. On the other hand, my Christian faith teaches these Hindu gods are not only pagan, but demonic. And no review on the worldview of a film would be complete without caution over glamorizing a pagan religion.
Zahn didn't mention that director Sanjay Patel based the short on his own experiences growing up, or that the film ends with real-life photos of Patel and his father.Will Zahn tell them that their religion is "demonic"?
Of course, Zahn also criticized the Disney film "Tangled" for committing the offense of teaching adolescents that the can think for themselves, because "nowhere does God prescribe rebellion and defiance as a proper path to adulthood." So maybe Zahn's worldview, and not the film, is the real issue here.
CNSNews.com has been pushing to the right for some time, trying to mainstream fringe figures like Franklin Graham and Rafael Cruz. Now a couple of fringe-right brothers are benefiting from the CNS whitewash treatment.
Penny Starr -- who uses her position at CNS to serve as an anti-abortion activist despite ostensibly being a "reporter" -- is now promoting Jason and David Benham, who are best known around these parts as WorldNetDaily columnists. Starr writes lovingly in a Dec. 2 article about how the Benhams insist that a true pro-lifer wouldnot have committed the Colorado Planned Parenthood massacre and, in fact, "would have felt called to have taken the bullet on the behalf of those three people that lost their lives." Starr then adds benignly: "The Benham brothers, the sons of an evangelical pastor, said they grew up in a 'pro-life family.' The reporter said the brothers have taken part in protests at Planned Parenthood clinics."
There's a lot more to the Benham story than Starr will tell you. The brothers' father is Flip Benham, one of the more notorious anti-abortion extremists. Right Wing Watch notes that in 2011, Flip Benham was found guilty of stalking an abortion provider after passing out hundreds of "wanted" posters with the physician’s name and photo on it. He's also virulently anti-gay.
And Starr is definitely not going to tell you the nature of the brothers anti-abortion protests: David Benham is on video praising his fellow demonstrators for taking a stand at “the gates of hell” and confronting the “altars of Moloch.”
Starr serves as the Benham's public relations agents again in on Dec. 7, getting an entire blog post of a single tweet:
In a tweet posted on Sunday, Jason Benham said his 11-year-old son was concerned that expressing one’s belief in Jesus Christ could put one in danger.
“So my 11 yr old says, ‘daddy, please stop talking about Jesus - I don't want someone to kill you.’ Yes, it's time for that conversation,” Benham tweeted.
Aww. Starr then does some more whitewashing:
The brothers first gained national recognition for being tapped by HGTV to host the “Flip it Forward” show focused on their real estate dealings, but the cable network canceled the show after a liberal media outlet reported that they are opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion.
The truth -- which Starr will not tell you -- is that the Benhams are not merely opposed to abortion, they rant about the "altars of Moloch." And they are not merely "opposed to same-sex marriage," they are virulently anti-gay.
Right Wing Watch -- the "liberal media outlet" Starr is blaming for the loss of the Benhams' TV show -- has documented the Benhams calling homosexuals "destructive," "vile," and controlled by "demonic forces." And since Right Wing Watch's claims are fully documented, including audio and video, and the Benhams have never questioned the accuracy of what it documented, it's irrelevant whether the outlet is "liberal" or not, except for Starr to indulge the Benhams by letting them play victim (which they love to do).
A real media outlet wouldn't let a reporter get away with such massaging of the facts, not to mention all the obsequious fawning, but that's CNS for you.
Yes, WND, Muslims Do Denounce Terrorist Attacks Topic: WorldNetDaily
The idea that moderate Muslims never denounce terrorism has never been true, but WorldNetDaily loves to promote it anyway, especially after the Paris attacks.
For instance, David Limbaugh huffed in his Nov. 16 WND column:
Well, if 95 percent of Muslims are peaceful wouldn’t they join us in condemning these murders by Islamists? Do they think for a second that rational people aren’t associating global terrorism with their religion? Isn’t the burden on peaceful Muslims to demonstrate to us how much they abhor what is going on in the name of their religion?
Gina Loudon sneered in her Nov. 22 WorldNetDaily column:
We ask this question after every terror attack and one or two may appear on the scene, but is anyone else beginning to wonder if those moderates are really the ones who are wrong about Islam? Are the moderates the ones who are skewing the teachings of the Quran and ignoring the teachings of their imams, who call for the destruction of Western civilization?
And Ben Kinchlow really hammered on it in his Dec. 6 WND column:
Moderate Muslims have proclaimed with real, or feigned, anger that these extremists have hijacked the real Islam – the “religion of peace.” If the moderate Muslims – “the good people” – trulybelieve their “religion of peace” has been hijacked by extremist elements that do not represent the teachings of the prophet and of Islam, why don’t they step forward and speak up?
Why don’t we hear impassioned speeches or see massive protests in the street by Muslims – who claim it is a “religion of peace” – speaking out against these acts of terrorism? Why don’t they call out terrorists as “terrorists”? Why don’t they?!
Ask yourself: When was the last time you saw a moderate Muslim nation, group or even an individual Muslim speak out vigorously and publicly to condemn these radical extremists’ terrorist activities?
If only 15-20 percent (or fewer) of Muslims are radical extremists, then why won’t the other 80-85 percent (or more) stand up and publicly condemn these rogue hijackers and the nations or individuals that sponsor or commit acts of terrorism? Why won’t they?
Hey, guys, guess what? Numerous Muslim groups around the world did, in fact, denounce the Paris attacks. And Muslim groups also condemned the San Bernardino attack.
Yet Loudon, Limbaugh and Kinchlow don't want you to know that. Nor do we recall WND telling its readers this.
It suits their anti-Muslim agenda better if Muslims aren't portrayed as less than human, as monolithic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers -- never mind that it's a lie.
But what else would you expect from the most dishonest news organization in America?
Yes, Tim Graham, The MRC Does Conflate Opinion With News Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham devotes a Dec. 7 NewsBusters post to whining that a Washington Post reporter has called out conservatives' repeated bleating about "liberal media bias" as usually "unfounded or greatly exaggerated" because "What they often fail to recognize -- or deliberately ignore -- is the separation of news and opinion."
Once again, Graham complains about the sincerity issue, huffing that the Post writer "cheaply tagged Republicans as insincere exploiters of media bias accusations" while suggesting, as he has before, that his own intentions are completely sincere despite getting paid very well to promote them and inculcate them into other conservatives. Remember, Graham's boss, Brent Bozell, proclaimed that hearing Republicans talk about media bias was "better than sex." Conservatives usually don't talk like that in a sincere way.
While Graham goes on to rant that "Republicans think many news reports in the Times (and the Post) are loaded with opinion and “news analysis” that blurs whatever divide they think they are maintaining," the point remains -- and Graham never counters it -- that conservatives conflate opinion with reporting to press their "media bias" case. The MRC frequently criticizes liberals who are being paid to express liberal opinions for the mere act of expressing that opinion -- or for simplyappearing on TV at all -- which cheapens their case.
Case in point: A Dec. 1 NewsBusters post by Kristine Marsh is headlined "Journalists Freak Out on Twitter: Pro-Life 'Extremists 'Want to Kill' Women." She goes on to cite what she called "the worst examples of journalists blaming pro-lifers for the violence that ensued last week."
But all of the people she cited are columnists or bloggers or employees of opinion journals; none of them are reporters for major media outlets, as Marsh's use of "journalists" suggests.
That's how conservatives (and the MRC) fail to recognize "the separation of news and opinion" in making their "media bias" claims. Graham doesn't counter that, because he knows it's true -- and that the right's whole "liberal media bias" argument rests on a shaky foundation.
WND's Loudon Pushes Ridiculous Conspiracy Behind Obama's Use Of 'ISIL' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily believes President Obama has a sinister motive for referring to ISIS as ISIL. WND columnist Gina Loudon is the latest to buy into the conspiracy:
Am I the only one shocked that the only people in the world who use the term “ISIL” rather than ISIS are the Obama administration officials and a few Republican senators who share Obama’s zeal for removing Assad? ISIS describes lands it holds in Iraq and Syria and accurately represents who it is. The Levant refers to a Syrian and Palestinian territory, land it does not hold, and ignores the existence of Israel all together. Why give ISIS that propaganda boost[?]
In fact, ISIL more accurately reflects the name of the Islamic State group and its ambitions describing the region it wants to establish an Islamist caliphate in, which would emcompass much more than Iraq and Syria. And as we've noted, the Obama administration says it uses ISIL in part because it doesn't share the name with a Greek goddess and those named after her, as ISIS does.
Loudon is so committed to her conspiracy theory that she failed to mention that Obama and other administration officials are on the record referring to the Islamic State as Daesh, which the group considers a derogatory name despite being based on the group's acronym in Arabic.
CNSNews.com's pattern of distortion of the latest unemployment numbers follows what it has been doing for the past several months by obsessing over the labor participation rate, as Susan Jones does this time around:
The number of Americans not in the labor force last month totaled 94,446,000--a slight improvement from the 94,513,000 not in the labor force in October--and the labor force participation rate increased a tenth of a point, with 62.5 percent of the civilian noninstitutional population either holding a job or actively seeking one.
(The labor force participation rate of 62.4 percent in September and October was the lowest in 38 years.)
CNS won't tell you that the labor participation rate is pretty misleading if you're suggesting, as Jones and CNS clearly are, that there are 90 milion Americans who can't find a job. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute agrees, pointing out that 41 million of them are retired, and an additional 15 million are not looking for work because they are in school.
We don't recall CNS ever providing a breakdown of thenot-in-labor-force for its readers -- presumably because it wants to make the unemployment numbers look as bad as possible for Obama, even when they are not.
When I wrote the syndicated Nov. 16, 2004, column, “Darth Democrat” exposing Obama’s reprobate commitment to the systematic extermination of the most defenseless among us – I knew he was evil and godless. When I wrote “Nero in the White House” Aug. 8, 2011, I detailed his unmitigated disregard and dishonesty for the American people. And when I wrote “Why I do not like the Obamas,” Feb. 23, 2012, I provided specific details pursuant to why I felt as I did.
From the beginning I was not fooled by Obama nor was my objectivity blinded by his skin color. But of all the heinous things Obama (and his wife) has done since he was elected in 2008, I am stunned at his unbridled commitment to place the American public at the mercy of those sworn to destroy us.
It is criminal negligence for this presidential family to have Michelle Obama shuffling and staggering around in the White House dancing the conga, as Americans outside their taxpayer-secured confines are placed in peril because of her husband’s contumacious dismissiveness.
How could America have twice elected a president who not only can’t stand America but also won’t perform his constitutional duty of defending it?
It will be a sheer joy when we have a new president, God willing, who genuinely loves this nation and sees it as a force for good throughout the world and begins to return it to that path. No, this nation is not over, but it needs to turn back to its founding principles and believe in itself again.
I have noticed that whenever Barack Obama approaches a microphone for a press conference or other speech he sounds like a programmed, unfeeling college professor bored with his job. His lack of passion or anger is apparent whenever he is forced to talk about things he feels he must address in order to appease the American people. However, his anger, disgust and passion do emerge every time he speaks about the Republican Party, when he can’t hide the vitriolic sarcasm and contempt he feels.
It has become obvious that Obama and the Democratic Party do not want competition or opposition anymore, so they are risking the safety of America to wipe out their most hated adversary – the Republican Party.
It is widely known among those who do not get their news from the alphabet TV networks that Obama has been clandestinely importing Muslims from Syria, Iraq, Somalia and other destabilized Muslim nations for several years. Now, on the pretext of humanitarianism, he intends to prey upon Americans’ sympathy to import tens of thousands more.
In the 50 or so years the left has been dictating the rules of racial etiquette, the life chances of the average black person have cratered, and race relations, if recent campus rumbles are any indication, have collapsed.
Seven years ago, millions of white Americans voted for Barack Obama in the hope of reversing this trend, but by design Obama has only aggravated it. Progressives, after all, progress. It’s in their nature.
The important lesson here is that America has moved closer to tyrannical dictatorship through the last seven years. I fully expect that to be even more true during Obama’s last year in office. In other words, there will be a lot of work to do beginning January 2017 to get our Constitution back.
While the presidential race is well under way and all of the candidates are promising what they will do when, and if, they become the president of the United States, not one of them has stated that he will right all of the wrongs concerning the past and present administrations.
If you look and listen closely (Jeremiah 5:21-23) to what these candidates say and contrast what they do, you will see that things just do not line up. Instead, they simply stand in direct contradiction (Matthew 23:3).
There is not one of the candidates, not one, who has drawn up Articles of Impeachment (Article II, Sections 4, of the United States Constitution; Jeremiah 5:1). Nor have any of them stated they would seek to prosecute the current occupant of the White House for his treason and crimes. Not one! Yet, they would have you believe that they are going to right the wrongs when they become the president – but not in their current position!
It’s also part of Obama’s agenda to “fundamentally transform America” before he leaves office in January 2017 by bringing in as many likely Democratic voters as possible.
But, also, you need to understand that Obama doesn’t care about the national security threat and the risks to public safety that his plan, in conjunction with the United Nations, spells for America. He doesn’t even consider it. It’s simply collateral damage as he sees it. If you want to make an omelet, as Josef Stalin explained, you have to break a few eggs.
Obama wants to make an omelet out of the greatest and freest nation in the history of the planet – a really bad, poisonous omelet.
First, there are the cases I (and others) brought challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to run for and be elected president of the United States. Despite the strong election laws in Florida, my home state, where any taxpayer or voter can challenge a candidate on the basis of fraud or misconduct, the courts there, in three successive cases going all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, dismissed all challenges without nary writing a coherent word explaining why. A similar result occurred in Alabama, although the chief judge there, Roy Moore, had the integrity to write a dissenting opinion agreeing with me. The hard fact: No judge in this country, other than Moore, would make such a ruling against an African-American president like Obama, who has spent his career, a la Al Sharpton playing and using the race card to destroy anyone of a different color who gets in his way. While judges are supposed to adjudicate cases and controversies regardless of political, economic and social pressures, it is revolting at best that they have bent over to this despot and his black and white leftist racist allies and apologists in the media. The result: The country has been sold out to foreign and Muslim interests, including the terrorists Obama refuses to even call Islamic, lest he offend his own bloodline.
The Founding Fathers clearly inserted this [eligibility] requirement into the Constitution to avoid a president being too close to foreign influences – a tragedy if not a disaster we have seen played out and foisted upon us by one President Barack Hussein Obama, our first and hopefully only “Muslim president,” born to a Muslim father, educated in Islamic schools in Indonesia, and likely birthed in Kenya and not Hawaii.
Here’s what Obama actually said: “Groups like ISIL cannot defeat us on the battlefield, so they try to terrorize us at home – against soft targets, against civilians, against innocent people. Even as we’re vigilant, we cannot, and we will not, subcumb (sic) to fear. Nor can we allow fear to divide us – for that’s how terrorists win. We cannot give them the victory of changing how we go about living our lives.”
I don’t know if the “subcumb” was a Teleprompter glitch or a Freudian slip.
Was he about to say “we cannot submit to fear” and switched verbal gears in a split second? Is succumb not in his vocabulary? Did he misread the word and place the “b” in the wrong place?
I don’t know. I do know that the actual meaning of the word “Islam” is submission. Is that significant? Or am I reading too much into a simple verbal gaffe?
Nothing has ever happened to the United States that is worse than the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. A committed Marxist collectivist, he has stood throughout his presidency against that very principle of individual rights that made America great. In abandoning our allies and aligning with the Muslim Brotherhood and other sinister groups, he has aligned with the most evil forces of the 21st century and overturned the order of the world. In abandoning and even actively turning against our allies (most notably Israel), he has made the United States of America, for so long the beacon of freedom in the world, into an untrustworthy ally, a nation that cannot be taken at its word.
We will be paying for Obama’s presidency for decades to come. The full dimensions of the damage he has caused – the gutting of the economy, the new polarization of the races, the Iran nuclear deal and more – is likely only to be known once he is out of office. And America may never recover from this catastrophe.
Newsmax Advertiser Uses Marco Rubio To Sell Dubious Supplement Pills Topic: Newsmax
Last month, in the wake of questions about Ben Carson's involvement with the shady nutritional supplement maker Mannatech, the Washington Post's David Weigel reported on how conservatives are a key constituency for supplement makers. He notes that Newsmax is a major purveyor of such supplements and "features links to miraculous-sounding products next to original reporting." He then quotes Newsmax editor Christopher Ruddy saying, “When I saw Mannatech being discussed at the debate, I looked up the company and said, ‘Reach out to them, they should be advertising this product on Newsmax.’ ”
That would explain the extremely low caliber of supplement firms that advertise on Newsmax.
Newsmax's "Top Stories" sidebar is a "feed network" that is also syndicated to numerous other websites with the promise of revenue-sharing. It used to contain headlines from Newsmax articles, but now is almost exclusively advertising for various and dubious products.
The other day, amid the other cheesy come-ons, we caught this headline on it: "Marco Rubio Shocks Country and Media With Latest Campaign News."
Like the sucker Newsmax believes us to be, we clicked on it. Which took us to this incredibly fake-looking "news" page under the fake-looking domain name "com--news.co" (we swear we saw an earlier version of this made to look like an equally fake-looking Fox News page).
As an apparent artifact to that fake Fox News page, the "news" article claims that "Marco Rubio shocks Bill O'Reilly by revealing his secret to working longer and more productive hours." IT goes on to serve up this terribly written "news" copy:
As a senator, Rubio is a big fan of reading books, the news, and doing puzzles but according to O'Reilly, he also credits his success to an IQ boosting, brain pill that helped him with memory, cognition and recall. This is the real magic says Rubio, referring to Accelerin Rubio wouldn't comment but when billionaire pal Warren Buffett said, "I had to tell Marco about (product name) I mean, this is something that I've used for years, it is in fact kind of a secret because you know, it's not heavily advertised but that's what's great about it, Accelerin puts all their money into finding the most organic, pure all natural ingredients and that it, it all goes into the formula, so you kind of have to be "in the know" to get your hands on it, but I tell everyone I meet my "secret" so I guess it's not really a secret anymore.
So Accelerin is the product being shilled here. It's presented as a and claims to be "the inspiration for the movie ‘Limitless'" and a "safe alternataive" to Adderall.
The article goes on to claim endorsements by Denzel Washington, Bradley Cooper and Dr. Oz, and includes a sidebar with fake covers of National Geographic and Time magazines, the latter accompanied by a fake endorsement from Tiger Woods, saying things like "I feel like I have opened up extra space in my brain."
(Oddly, those fake magazine covers reference a completely different product, "Brain Storm Elite," which may or may not be the same thing as Accelerin.)
It also claims "MIT scientist Peter Molnar" said, "We tested Accelerin Vs. Adderall with 1000 subjects, over a 10 day period and the results were shocking... Accelerin - out performed Adderall and we concluded that it was 600% more effective and subjects doubled their IQ while taking Accelerin." There is a Peter Molnar who's a scientist, but he's an geological scientist who likely wouldn't be conducting research on nutritional supplements, and he left MIT in 2001.
The web page also asserts that Accelerin is "clinically proven" to:
Sky-rocket Concentration by 32%
Improve Creative Thinking
Enhance Memory Recall
Increase IQ Scores by 47%
The website concludes with an obviously bogus "verified real" comments section:
What is in Accelerin? We have no idea; the actual sales page for it linked in the fake "news" page claims it has "100% Pure Phosphatidylserine Complex," whatever that is. It also admits (in small type at the bottom of the page) that "The statements made on our websites have not been evaluated by the FDA."
So, we have an ad for a questionable product using wild, unproven (and unprovable) claims and almost certainly made-up celebrity and politician endorsements. (If the makes of Accelerin have proof to back up any of this, they are free to share it with us and the world.) It may sell some pills, but this and other shady supplement sellers that also peddle their pills on Newsmax -- which apparently has no advertiser standards it's interested in enforcing -- sure doesn't make Newsmax look like a credible place to get information from.