WND Adds Benham Brothers As Columnists, Downplays Their Anti-Gay Remarks Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily couldn't be prouder to have David and Jason Benham as columnists, as the March 13 WND article announcing their arrival makes clear. After all, their anti-gay values mesh so very well with thoseofWND's.
Of course, WND does its best to pretend the Benhams really aren't anti-gay at all; they just believe in "biblical marriage." Let the whitewashing begin:
As WND reported, home-flippers David and Jason Benham were elated when a production company first approached them about starring in their own reality TV show.
Eventually five networks made offers, with HGTV submitting the best: six one-hour episodes, straight to TV, with no pilot episode necessary.
The show was to be called “Flip it Forward” and would feature the Benham brothers transforming fixer-uppers into dream homes for families.
As Christians, they felt graced by God.
Then it crashed. A liberal “watchdog” organization made a campaign of what HGTV already knew – that the brothers believed in the standards established in the Bible regarding marriage, life and more.
It came out in the media, however, as “anti-gay.” And “anti-choice.”
But the show was canceled because of pressure from liberal and progressive interests.
WND will never tell you that the Benhams -- sons of anti-abortion extremist Flip Benham -- are as anti-gay as advertised. Right Wing Watch has documented the Benhams calling homosexuals "destructive," "vile," and controlled by "demonic forces."
The Benhams' inaugural column invokes some of that anti-gay sentiment, if toned down. They complain that "openly gay former major leaguer" Billy Bean "Bean was invited to openly express his views on homosexuality as Major League Baseball’s ambassador of inclusion" while "Daniel Murphy of the New York Mets, a devout Christian, was told he could only talk baseball after he respectfully offered his thoughts when asked about the homosexual lifestyle."
Yep, the Benhams and WND were made for each other.
MRC Attacks Writer For Reporting Facts About Margaret Sanger Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has a fund-raising campaign going on now featuring the grim, bearded visage of Brent Bozell and the slogan, "Join the MOVEMENT and demand TRUTH in media." But there are sometimes when the MRC doesn't want the truth to be told.
In a March 13 MRC article, Katie Yoder goes after a writer for Christianity Today simply for telling the truth about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:
Does Margaret Sanger’s legacy have redeeming qualities? One Christianity Today board member thinks it does.
For Christianity Today, Rachel Marie Stone discussed how “Contraception Saves Lives” in a March 11 piece. Stone, who sits on the editorial board of CT, attempted to redeem Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger through her birth control support – and “give the charge of ‘eugenicist’ a more complete background.” Facing a Twitter backlash, she later defended her story by tweeting about Sanger’s “compassion.”
To begin her piece, Stone told the story of Margaret Sanger as a “young nurse” who promised to make contraception “widely available to working class and poor women” after watching a woman die after an attempted abortion.
Stone went on to detail how she encountered a midwife, Lena, in Malawi, Africa who studied at the Margaret Sanger Center in Lower Manhattan. “A great woman, Margaret Sanger!” Lena told her.
While Stone “wasn’t sure how to reply,” she explained how “Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, which, contrary to what Sanger would have wished, is today the largest provider of abortions in the United States.”
“Sanger herself opposed abortion,” Stone said, by “saying that ‘no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life.’”
Huh. Wonder if Stone also knows Sanger described birth control as “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit” for a “cleaner race.”
Stone admitted Sanger, “like many medical professionals in her day, did hold eugenicist ideas,” and while she didn’t want to “excuse” Sanger, she did “want to give the charge of ‘eugenicist’ a more complete background.”
We can't have a "more complete background" on someone who's been dead for decades yet remains someone right-wingers like Yoder and the MRC consider a sworn enemy, can we?
At no point does Yoder prove that anything Stone wrote about Sanger is wrong. Instead, she's objecting to it having been written at all. Yoder invokes a professor who furthers the attack on Sanger under a piece less-than-objectively headlined "Margaret Sanger’s legacy is not salvageable, so let’s not try." So much for objective research, eh, prof?
This just shows that Yoder isn't interested in facts when they don't agree with her right-wing agenda -- and that the MRC doesn't really want "TRUTH in media" when it doesn't benefit them.
WND's Newest Lie: Loretta Lynch Is 'Tied to Terrorists, Drug Cartels' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily loves the big lie -- i.e. Obama was born in Kenya and other falsehoods about his "elibibility -- sprinkled amidst numerous smaller lies that come from straight fromthe top.
WND went the big-lie route in the subhead of a March 14 article by Garth Kant about Loretta Lynch's nomination for attorney general: "Attorney general nominee tied to terrorists, drug cartels."
That is a bald-faced lie, and WND knows it.
Here is the evidence Kant presents purporting to back up that false claim:
But behind the scenes, the sudden change of hearts also may be due to a WND expose about allegations that Lynch covered-up money laundering by drug lords and terrorists.
WND has chronicled in great detail charges that Lynch, in her capacity as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 2012, arranged a mere slap-on-the-wrist settlement with the world’s second-largest bank, HSBC, for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and Middle Eastern terrorists.
The wrist-slap $1.9 billion fine paid to the U.S. government, and an admission of “willful criminal conduct,” allowed HSBC to enter into a “deferred prosecution” settlement, which ended the investigation and stopped the filing of criminal charges.
At no point has WND ever documented that Lynch is "tied" to terrorists or drug cartels. Lynch's work to achieve a monetary settlement instead of a criminal prosecution does not equal "covering up" for "drug lords and terrorists." And HSBC's $1.9 billion fine is hardly a "wrist-slap" as Kant claims; it was a record fine at when it was imposed in 2012.
Kant is so completely down with the big lie that he repeated it in the body of his March 16 article, referencing "WND’s revelations about Lynch’s ties to terrorists and drug lords."
WND has been pushing Lynch's link to the HSBC settlement in a desperate attempt to promote another lie: that it broke the HSBC story. As we've documented, it didn't -- WND's initial reports on HSBC actually acknowledged earlier reporting.
But with this claim, WND appears to be blowing past your garden-variety lie and straight to libel. Lynch should check with a lawyer to see if she has a case -- and WND might want to consult an attorney to formulate a defense.
There are many good reasons nobody believes WND, and this kind of deliberate, malicious libel is just one of them.
WND's Klein Sets Up Blame Game for Netanyahu Loss Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily coverage of the upcoming Israeli elections by Jerusalem-based reprter Aaron Klein has been not only sparse -- since March 1, he has written only three articles on it, even though the election is tomorrow -- it has been very narrow, focusedonly on the issue of American political operatives who once worked for President Obama's campaign and now working for the anti-Netanyahu coalition.
As befits his history of championing Netanyahu over the years, Klein's work comes off as press releases for the Netanyahu campaign. He does it again in a March 14 article in which once again helps Netanyahu play the victim card once again by suggesting the Obama administration is directly involved in the anti-Netayahu effort -- something he has no direct evidence of.
As we've noted, Klein conveniently ignores the fact that U.S. Republican operatives are working for Netanyahu's campaign. Additionally, as Josh Marshall points out, Netanyahu benefits from the existence of the Israel Hayom newspaper, a popular but money-losing newspaper in Israel founded by American casino magnate (and right-wing moneybags) Sheldon Adelson to promote Netanyahu and his policies.
Klein once again promotes the more-than-vaguely-racist idea that Arabs in Israel shouldn't be mobilized to vote because "Israeli election trends have long demonstrated that Arab citizens vote overwhelmingly for left-wing and Arab parties. Any increase in the Arab vote would clearly come at the expense of the Likud Party and other right-wing parties."
There's much more going on in the Israeli election than Klein will ever tell you at WND -- and that may explain his reporting strategy.
Wwe've previously reported that Netanyahu and his Likud party have been embroiled in numerous controversies that may cost them the election -- something Klein has completely censored in his WND reporting. Indeed, the most recent polling shows Likud slightly behind.
By focusing solely (and disingenuously) on the issue of foreign anti-Netanyahu operatives, Klein appears to be setting up the narrative that if Netanyahu and Likud lose, it's the fault of those operatives. It's something that Klein can apparently get a lot of stories out of, and promoting this conspiracy theory is apparently easier for him than, you know, doing real reporting about what is actually happening in the election.
Remember, Klein is a right-wing extremist who has expressed sympathy for the far-right views of Meir Kahane and who has repeatedly used his reporting to advance the agenda of right-wing elements in Israel. That appears to be what he's doing here as well.
MRC's Graham Baselessly Attacks Anita Hill Again Topic: Media Research Center
The fact that Anita Hill has never been proven wrong about her sexual harrassment allegations against Clarence Thomas hasn't kept the Media Research Center from holding a grudge against her for more than two decades. For instance, MRC official Tim Graham branded Hill as a liar despite offering no proof (or any consideration of the possibility that Thomas is the one who's lying by denying Hill's accusations), and Scott Whitlock baselessly suggested that Hill's only motivation was money.
With the news of a TV movie in the works about the Hill-Thomas conflict, Graham was in grump mode in a March 14 NewsBusters post:
HBO is making another liberal propaganda flick – and it’s sloppy seconds to Showtime. Lesley Goldberg of The Hollywood Reporter had the exclusive: Kerry Washington, star of ABC’s Scandal, will play Anita Hill in the movie Confirmation.
In 1999, Showtime aired a similar "fact-based" film called Strange Justice, based on the Clarence Thomas-attacking book by liberal reporters Jill Abramson (later executive editor of The New York Times) and Jane Mayer.
The film is expected to detail “the explosive 1991 Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings (at which Hill testified), which brought the country to a standstill and forever changed the way people think about sexual harassment, victims' rights and modern-day race relations.”
Translation: the sympathetic star won’t be seen as a liberal activist who wanted to sink the Thomas nomination anonymously, but was forced into testifying and offered unsubstantiated accusations of sexual harassment by Thomas (which remain unsubstantiated, but endlessly regurgitated by liberals.)
Needless to say, Graham offers no evidence that Hill was solely "a liberal activist who wanted to sink the Thomas nomination." Indeed, all he's doing is regurgitating Thomas' own attacks on Hill -- as if Thomas' word should automatically be trusted over that of Hill's.
But then, the MRC has always denigrated anyone who makes sexual harrassment claims against its favorite conservatives. In 2011, for instance, the MRC similarly denounced harrassment claims made against would-be GOP presidential candidate (and personal friend of MRC chief Brent Bozell) Herman Cain as "unsubstantiated" -- even though it was on record that the National Restaurant Association, while it was headed by Cain, reached monetary agreements with two women to settle harassment claims -- and the MRC's Dan Gainor similarly played the gold-digger card against Cain's accusers.
WND's Idea Of 'Analysis': Mock The Fashion of Jeb Bush Supporters Topic: WorldNetDaily
Garth Kant's March 8 WorldNetDaily article is presented as an "analysis." But it begins with several paragraphs of mocking the looks of who he claims were supporters of Jeb Bush at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference:
Something wasn’t right here.
Not only was the hall suddenly overflowing, these were a different breed. Something subtly amiss grew increasingly creepy by the minute. Unthreatening enough not to cause panic but perceptibly subversive and sinister enough to trigger alarms. Then it became clear. It was an invasion. By an entirely alien invasive species.
The polyester-blend nation of Stepford Republicans had seized control of the conservative conference known as CPAC.
It was obvious the crowd for Jeb Bush had been imported.
It wasn’t just the overflowing hall.
Or the suspicious number of Bush stickers on lapels that suddenly appeared.
It was the lapels.
It was the uniform. They all dressed the same. Sanitized of any style or hint of originality and dressed not for success but not to cause offense.
Conservative attendees had heard the rumor swirling through the convention that there would be a protest walkout when the former Florida governor spoke that last Friday of February. What they did not find out until later was that Bush supporters, staffers and volunteers had been shipped in by the busloads from the lobbyist lair of K Street, in nearby Washington.
In fact, a leaked email would reveal they had been instructed to arrive at 7:30 a.m. for the 1:40 p.m. appearance and to save seats for fellow travelers.
The walkers lined the halls and pressed against the walls of what was by far the biggest crowd at the convention that week. They were everywhere.
Bushies rarely spoke, even more rarely smiled, frowned or let any expression crease their faces. Glued to phones, texting incessantly. Uniformly neutral in demeanor and personality, which is to say vacuous. Vacant. Void. Null set. No lights on and nobody home.
Worse yet … moderates.
Bushies came in two basic models: wiry weasel junior executive and doughy frat pledge. There were few women.
Weasels wore JCPenney junior executive wannabe power-ranger suits with pale shirts and what their dads told them were power ties. The doughboys wore the same outfit purchased from Ed’s Big and Tall.
They all bore the same purposefully inoffensive-as-possible Supercuts hairstyle cropped just above the ears, two inches above the collar. The length in front was about one-month-out-of-military-prep-school growth, and somehow managed to be both highly and unimaginatively coiffed. Their uniformity, conformity and lack of individuality was an ideal to which all could aspire. Together. All at once.
Perhaps, like Mormon door-to-door missionaries, they would appear less-threatening if they all looked alike.
By contrast, of course, the people who came closer to Kant's far-right beliefs -- and get lots of press at WND -- dressed much better. Sarah Palin was "casually comfortable and self-possessed in jeans and sweater" and is "no fashion slacker. Her taste for haute couture is well-documented, refined, extensive and expensive, running the gamut of Valentino, Elie Tahari, Escada, Akris Punto and St. John." Ted Cruz has "taste in attire that is not expensive but understated and comfortable in its own skin," and "Cruz’s buddy, Sen. Mike Lee, dresses like he is: not flashy but always impeccably direct, honest and whip-smart."
Kant saved his greatest sartorial praise for convicted criminal James O'Keefe:
Guerrilla video-journalist James O’Keefe, when not dressed as a pimp, usually dresses like a regular college kid in videos and daily life. At CPAC, he was dressed to the nines, stepping out of a Hugo Boss ad with a form-fitted fashion plate of a tailored three-piece suit with a vest so shiny it lit up the dark bar where he held court on the eve of his appearance on a CPAC panel. Aloof to strangers, quick to laugh and self-deprecating in private, he took jabs at his ego from his friends in stride. Funny and as razor-sharp as his suit.
CNS Still Privileges Alveda King With Unearned 'Dr.' Title Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com loves to privilege Alveda King with the "Dr." title, even though her doctorate is honorary (from Saint Anselm College) and not earned. It did so again twice this past week.
A March 9 CNS article by Penny Starr puts "Dr. Alveda King" right in the headline, and Starr herself gives her the "Dr." title in the article. There's also a photo of King with the grating caption "Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."
A March 13 column by King carries the "Dr. Alveda King" byline, plus a bio tag at the end stating "Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."
If CNS had any journalistic integrity, it would reject Alveda King's blatantly dishonest efforts to inflate her credentials to portray herself as an equal of her uncle. But then, CNS' right-wing agenda has little to do with journalistic integrity.
Cocky Farah: 'I Am Kicking Papal Butt' Topic: WorldNetDaily
We have not written the term "kicking papal butt" before, but we get to because WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah has a grudge against Pope Francis for claiming that evolution is not incompatible with creation. Farah writes in his March 12 WND column:
In a referendum on evolution between me and the pope taking place among Catholics since Thanksgiving, I am kicking papal butt.
Back in November, I took Pope Francis to task for saying: “God is not … a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
A respected writer for the Wanderer, James K. Kilpatrick, defended the pope’s position. He was inundated with letters from fellow Catholics who support my position and question why the pope doesn’t just accept the Bible as true.
Of course, a popularity contest is the absolute worst way to determine the validity of a scientific principle, but Farah is presumably willing to overlook that as long as he's winning said popularity context.
Also of course (because he's a liar), back in November Farah falsely claimed that the pope's statement meant that he was denying the Bible's account of creation and insisting that Genesis is literally true:
The Genesis account isn’t just some Old Testament fairy tale. It is fundamental to Christian belief. It was thoroughly affirmed by Jesus. In fact, if the fall of man is just an allegory, one wonders why Jesus would have had to come to atone for man’s sin – a prophecy first revealed in Genesis.
I don’t understand Christians who discount Genesis. It makes no sense. Nothing in the Bible makes sense without the Creation account. If the pope doesn’t believe the foundational aspect of the Bible, does he believe any of it? If he does, he really owes the Christian world an explanation of which parts of the Bible he believes and which he discounts.
As I recall my trip this month to Jerusalem, the Holy City of God, I wonder just how small the remnant of believers will be when Jesus comes again.
I also wonder if the pope believes He will come again.
Farah doesn't mention that Pope Francis' statement is in line with the stance of previous popes.
In a Feb. 10 column, Farah highlighted how a Catholic publication picked up his attack on the pope, proudly noting how other self-proclaimed Catholics "rushed to my defense," adding, "if this were a popularity contest between my view of Creation and the pope’s, I win hands down – at least with his readers."
Then he lied again: "My commentary was not written in anger. Nor did I attack the pope. What I did was defend the inspiration and integrity of the Bible – including Genesis, the very foundation for the scriptures that follow." Really? There was no anger in suggesting that the pope doesn't believe Jesus will come again if he doesn't believe the evangelical Protestant interpretation of creation?
And Farah's declaration that he's "kicking papal butt" is also a clear sign he's making this very personal and very antagonistic.
CNS' Starr Thinks It's News That Sexual Orientation Can Change Over Time Topic: CNSNews.com
This is the entirety of a March 13 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America tells teens on its website that it “can take a long time” to determine one’s “sexual orientation or gender identity.”
"Sexual orientation describes which gender(s) you're attracted to, sexually and/or romantically," says Planned Parenthood's "All About LGBTQ at a Glance" webpage. "Sometimes a person's sexual orientation changes over time, but people can't choose or decided to change who they're attracted to."
“It can take many years for people to understand their sexual orientation, and it can change over your lifetime — so a lot of people call themselves questioning, which means they aren’t sure about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This is common — especially for teens,” the website states.
"LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning," says the webpage.
That's it. There's no explanation why of Starr finds this to be "news," or even that it's somehow a change from previous information provided by Planned Parenthood or any other credible organization on the subject (it's not).
The important thing about this article is what's not in it: It does contradict right-wing opinion that choosing to be something other than a heterosexual is a conscious choice and nothing more than a "lifestyle" that can be easily changed on a whim. It's nothing but a dog whistle for CNS readers, who have fulfilled their end of the deal by filling the article's comment thread with anti-gay vitriol.
Indeed, CNS gave away the game when it tweeted out a link to Starr's article with the added comment, "Homosexual by Choice?"
Just a few days ago, Starr's fellow CNS reporter Barbara Hollingsworth fretted that "Psychology Today announced last week that it will no longer accept ads from therapists who offer 'conversion therapy' or 'reparative therapy' to gays who want to leave the homosexual lifestyle." As could be expected, she devoted much more space to those who oppose the decision than to those who say such "reparative therapy" is harmful.
If Starr wanted to do real reporting, she would have done a lot more than she did. But these four paragraphs shows she's simply regurgitating her employer's anti-gay agenda rather than being a journalist.
WND's Hieb -- Who Lied About Vaccinaton Stats -- Fearmongers About Vaccination Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've caught Dr. Lee Hieb lying about data to fearmonger that the measles vaccine is more deadly than actually having measles. Despite that (or maybe because of that), WorldNetDaily considers her a credible person. So Hieb is back to fearmonger again in a March 10 WND column attacking the idea of mandatory vaccination with every bit of speciousness she can muster.
First, she invents sinister motives for a federal five-year plan to push vaccination:
Is it just my sense of irony or is it a signal to fellow travelers that this is a “Five-year Plan”? Did they hire old Soviet central planners or come up with this all on their own? Anyway, the folks at HHS fully admit this is possible only through the implementation of the ACA, which we are learning is an unaffordable care act but one that allows data collection on every patient of every doctor who accepts federal funding.
Then, laughably, she says she's interested in "honest discussion over the science" of vaccination , though she's on record lying about vaccination data and spent the previous paragraph attacking vaccines by invoking communism, not addressing the science.
Still, she huffs, "I still await any actual scientific refutation of my concerns." Well, science isn't necessary to prove that Hieb lied about vaccination data.
And to further prove she's all about the "science" of vaccination, Hieb likens mandatory vaccination to mandatory sterilization:
Let me be clear. Public health does not trump individual liberty. End of story.
If you believe the opposite, you can ethically condone forced sterilization, because it improves the health and wholeness of the body politic. Think I’m exaggerating? Between 1897 and 1909 forced sterilization of mentally handicapped was approved into law in Michigan Indiana, Pennsylvania, Washington and, of course, California. And in 1927 such acts were deemed by the Supreme Court “constitutional.” No lesser light than Oliver Wendell Holmes himself justified the decision by saying, “It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”
After the atrocities of the Holocaust, Americans briefly got a conscience about such things and reversed the policies of forced sterilization. But with time, creeping socialism and collective amnesia, old habits and human moral frailties resurfaced so that between 1973-1976 thousands of Native American women were sterilized without their consent by government physicians. And as late as 2010, in California, female inmates were sterilized involuntarily. Of course, these things always are done in the name of society or public health. When Ezekiel Emanuel proposes withholding money for medical care of the elderly he does so in the name of fairness – of using the money wisely, yada yada. We’ve heard this all so many times in so many guises.
Now it is vaccination.
If Hieb really thinks the "science" backs her up, she wouldn't need to resort to such cheap, lazy diversionary fearmongering.
Hieb's not the only documented WND liar to weigh in on the subject. Jerome Corsi -- who has spreadnumerouslies about President Obama -- frets in a March 12 WND article about "the sentiment to sue parents who choose not to vaccinate their children."
CNS' Hunter Continues Her Obsession With LGBT-Related Federal Spending Topic: CNSNews.com
Hey, look, CNSNews.com deputy managing editor Melanie Hunter has found yet another example of LGBT-related federal spending she has deemed wasteful:
The National Institutes of Health has awarded $228,425 to the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (translated it means Cayetano Heredia University), a private university in Lima, Peru, to study syphilis among gay men in that country.
This makes 10 articles Hunter has written since December on supposedly wasteful LGBT-related spending, versus two articles on non-LGBT spending during that same time period.
Hunter has yet to publicly explain her disproportionate focus on LGBT-related spending or whether she has found any such spending she doesn't consider to be a waste of money.
WND's Loudon Plays Armchair Psychologist Again, Diagnoses Obama As Screwed Up Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last year, WorldNetDaily columist Gina Loudon took to her armchair to invent a diagnosis of President Obama as going insane, then defended her armchair psychology by touting her invented "policology" and declaring that mental health professionals as she claims to be don't "surrender our First Amendment rights when we go to graduate school. If the leader of the free world is acting erratically, I would think it would be incumbent upon those who know the signs of instability the best to call out what they see, before something crazy happens, like the release of five terrorists in the exchange for a defector, or something!"
Well, Loudon is once again asserting her First Amendment right to baselessly speculate about Obama's mental state. In her March 8 WND column, Loudon insists that Obama growing up without his biological father made him into less than a real American, or something:
President Obama is affected by “father loss,” as we call it in my field, because his father left him as a baby and he longed his entire life for his return, and approval (“Dreams from My Father”). Even the very title of his book, “Dreams from My Father,” tells a story of a child damaged and forever impacted by a father who rejected him. Obama openly discusses his drive to continue his dead father’s legacy in his book.
Psychoanalysts have long studied the impact typical of boys in Obama’s situation. One analyst contends that a boy whose father has died forms a grandiose idea of him and strongly calls upon himself to replace the parent who has been thus idealized. But other theorists recognize that the rejection of the father while he was alive, coupled with the subsequent death and idealization of his image, evokes a powerful insecurity and emotional reconciliation that can continue through the lifespan of the child, and even stunt his emotional development. The child in that scenario can end up spending most of his life in a pattern of trying to reconcile that rejection throughout their lives, even long after the death of the father.
Obama’s protective attitude toward Islam, the faith of his father before he became an atheist, as well as his lack of a clear “American first” strategy of Reagan or Bush in international conflicts, is a logical extension of his father’s anti-colonialist Third World view of the U.S. This leaves Obama like a boat without a rudder, because he has found himself the leader of the very country his father hated. That is a huge internal conflict: How do you simultaneously love a country enough to govern it, while still hoping to win the love, even posthumously, of a father you need?
Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, is a total stud because he had a father who loved him:
Netanyahu cares very little about who likes him. He is secure in his own strategy and leadership since he had a strong and loving father. Netanyahu is motivated by his own security, confidence and a sense of justice. Obama is motivated by his own insecurity, a lack of confidence and a need for approval. Thus, Netanyahu easily makes decisions based on conviction and leads decisively. Obama distrusts his own instincts, feels insecure about his ability to make good decisions and reacts often by overreacting.
For example, in Netanyahu’s speech last week that Obama boycotted, he said, “The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.” Congress erupted in applause. Then he continued, “We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.”
We have a president who, by legacy, holds conflicted loyalty to the country he leads. By contrast, Netanyahu, like Jews born anywhere in the world, is fighting for the very land of his fathers going back thousands of years – land the Bible holds was actually given to them by God himself. Netanyahu betrays by losing the land, and Obama betrays by protecting it. Such a divide may be impossible to bridge. The reality is that by almost any account, freedom loses if Israel is threatened.
As we all know, WND editor Joseph Farah is proud of his columnists that make stuff up.
CNS' Jeffrey Forgets Who Was President When Most Gitmo Detainees Who Returned To Terrorism Were Released Topic: CNSNews.com
In a March 7 CNSNews.com article, CNS editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey writes about how "The Director of National Intelligence released a report this week indicating that the United States has 'confirmed' that 116 detainees "transferred" out of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, subsequently reengaged in terrorist or insurgent activities." Jeffrey then tries to blame President Obama for this, noting that "Two days after he first took office in 2009, President Obama issued an executive order calling for Guantanamo to be closed. That order also called for officials to review what should be done with each individual transferred from the prison."
But it's not until the 23rd paragraph of his article that Jeffrey admits (grudging, in parentheses) that the recidivism rate for detainees released under Obama is lower than it used to be:
(The percentage of Guantanamo detainees released after President Obama's executive order who have been confirmed to have returned to terrorist or insurgent activity has been less thus far--5.2 percent--than it has been for detainees released before the executive order, which is 17.9 percent.)
Jeffrey curiously doesn't mention who was president before Obama and, thus, the president with the higher recidivism rate: Republican George W. Bush. In fact, Bush's name appears nowhere in Jeffrey's article, even though he repeatedly names Obama and publishes Republican criticism of Obama's Gitmo release policy.
Jeffrey doesn't seem to want to let inconvenient facts interfere with his politically motivated attack on Obama disguised as "news."
WND's Farah Obsessively Speculates Whether Obama Will Leave Office In 2017 Topic: WorldNetDaily
President Obama is living rent-free inside Joseph Farah's head.
That's been true for years. of course -- how else could he use his WorldNetDaily to perpetuate false birther conspiracies? -- but it has become especially apparent over the past week, in which Farah has written not one, not two, but three columns devoted to speculating whether Obama will voluntarily leave office when his term ends in January 2017.
Farah kicked off his baseless frenzy of speculation in his March 5 WND column, declaring that Obama "respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power" and, thus, might refuse to leave the White House when his term ends. Farah huffed; "Again, do I think Obama will leave office in January 2017? Yes I do. But, with a track record like this – and, actually much worse – should we simply take it for granted?"
Farah followed up in his March 8 column, upset that Right Wing Watch highlighted his earlier column but proud that his buddy Rush Limbaugh enthustiastically endorsed his speculation. He continued to rant:
There’s simply no organized opposition to Obama’s illegal, criminal actions and behavior. He’s getting away with all of it. There are no serious repercussions. No political price. No major media opposition. Few judicial rulings that worry him. Not one political, religious or social institution that is holding him accountable – least of all the Republican Party.
A handful of vocal critics on the Internet and talk radio point out his violations of the law, American tradition, the concept of constitutionally limited government with a system of checks and balance, not to mention decency and basic morality. But there is no operating political mechanism to stop him from doing anything and everything he wants to do.
Yet Farah wasn't done speculating. His March 10 column invented an excuse why Obama would want to stay -- free vacations:
How many vacations have you taken in the last six years?
Have you taken six?
I doubt most Americans have been able to do that. For families, it might be even tougher.
Do you know how many Barack Obama has taken?
That’s right. That’s more than six vacations per year – all expenses paid by you the taxpayer. And these are not your routine week-at-the-beach excursions. These would almost all be vacations of a lifetime for even very wealthy Americans. He and the first family, God love them, are living it up on your dime.
No doubt Obama will be in a position to make lots of money after the presidency, whenever he decides to end it. But it’s hard to imagine him enjoying six all-expense-paid vacations every year at his venue of choice. Not too many people live that kind of life – even with the “endowments” recent past presidents often get from their oil baron friends in the Middle East.
Do you think Obama’s about to give that up and move out of the White House to make room for Hillary Clinton?
I don’t know. The more I think about it, the less convinced I am.
Farah seems to have overlooked the fact that as of the same point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had taken more than three times as many vacation days as Obama has. Yet we don't recall Farah ever complaining about the amount of vacation time Bush took.
Yep, Obama's living rent-free in Farah's head. And it must kill Farah to know that -- after all, he destroyed what little journalistic reputation WND had with his obsessive drive to personally destroy the president.
Yet after all this time and the destruction of his own reputation, Farah just can't evict the president from his head. Sad, isn't it?