The president's case is slightly different. Unlike most presidents we've had, Barack Obama is a dedicated ideologue. He believes developed nations are obligated to financially support the entire world. Should plebeians in the West be forced into an 18th century level of subsistence to bring the Third World into the Bronze Age, so be it. This is only fair. For Obama, the personal gain factor – while definitely a consideration – is almost secondary.
Molotov Mitchell's endorsement of the "abolition of homosexuality" by killing gays in Uganda is not the only manifestation of WorldNetDaily's anti-gay agenda in recent days.
A Dec. 22 WND article by Bob Unruh expresses shock that conservatives might be within close proximity to gay people, highlighting a campaign by fellow anti-gay activists Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber to bar a gay conservative group from sponsoring next year's Conservative Political Action Conference. Despite the fact that the group, GOProud, broke away from another gay group, the Log Cabin Republicans, for not being conservative enough and its apparent acquiescence to CPAC's strictures, as Unruh reported, that it will have no speakers and will not be allowed to debate gay issues, that apparently isn't enough for LaBarbera.
Unruh quotes LaBarbera as saying that "GOProud supports the same radical homosexualist agenda as other GLBT organizations – which is corrupting children and tearing apart America’s moral fiber." Barber added that "This group is pushing a radical leftist agenda that is an affront to the GOP platform, conservatism and, most importantly, the Word of God."
Given that WND tacitly endorses killing gays through its hosting of Molotov Mitchell's video, it's a surprise that it didn't allow Barber to express his full-on hatred of gays, such as his description of homosexuality as "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it 'love.'" (Which raised a bit of controversy when LaBarbera repeated it in attacking GOProud.)
This was accompanied by another article from Unruh that went the self-pitying sour-grapes route, declaring that because CPAC barred WND from doing a forum on Barack Obama's birth certificate yet is allowing "homosexual sponsorship," CPAC is "is stepping away from its conservative foundations."
UPDATE: Media Matters' Jamison Foser notes that WND hasn't said a thing about the ultra-right John Birch Society taking part in CPAC.
New Article: Helping Huckabee Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax works (most of the time, anyway) to defend Mike Huckabee against criticism of clemencies he granted as Arkansas governor that had deadly consequences. Read more >>
Chuck Norris Takes Obama Out of Context Topic: WorldNetDaily
What is with right-wing celebrities smearing President Obama by quoting him out of context?
Following in the footsteps of Pat Boone, Chuck Norris uses his Dec. 20 WorldNetDaily column to attack Obama by heavily editing what he said to present it in a false light:
First, even during his campaign for the presidency, Obama sarcastically belittled America's Judeo-Christian heritage and degraded its adherents with trite remarks typical of any atheistic antagonist: "Whatever we were, we are no longer a Christian nation"; "The dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever"; "Religion doesn't allow for compromise": "The Sermon on the Mount [is] a passage that is so radical that our own defense department wouldn't survive its application"; and "To base our policy making upon such commitments [as moral absolutes] would be a dangerous thing." (See the YouTube video: "Barack Obama on the importance of a secular government.")
Second, 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." (Who are the "we" to whom he refers? Would our former presidents agree with his "we"?)
Norris has ripped the first statement and the similar Turkey statement out of context. Here's the full version of what Obama said in Turkey, according to the video Norris links to:
I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is, although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think Turkey -- modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles. And yet what we're seeing in both countries is that promise of a secular country that is respectful of religious freedom, respectful of the rule of law, respctful of freedom, upholding these values and being willing to stand up for them on the international stage.
The other statements Norris cites come from a November 2008 speech that, as he notes, focuses on the importance on a secular government. Norris doesn't explain why he apparently opposes secular government.
Of course, lyingaboutObama and taking him out of context is old hat for WND writers. Indeed, WND reinforced Norris' distortions by quoting them in a Dec. 22 article by Bob Unruh attacking Obama over a single ornament on a large White House Christmas tree that has, among the many images on it, a tiny image of Chairman Mao.
We already knew that Molotov Mitchell has issues with the mere existence of homosexuals -- after all, his extremist Christian movement, inspired by the straight-edge punk lifestyle claims to embrace "sexual purity through ... the abolition of homosexuality."
Now, he's endorsing one method of achieving that abolition -- literally, through capital punishment. Mitchell's Dec. 23 WorldNetDaily video is dedicated to defending a proposed draconian anti-gay law in Uganda that would, among other things, make homosexual acts punishable by life in prison at minimum or the death penalty for those caught engaging in it more than once. It even punishes knowledge of homosexual activity with a prison sentence.
But that's cool with ol' Molotov. He complained that pastor Rick Warren finally came out against the law "after a week of merciless taunting from some lesbian chick at MSNBC" (accompanied by an image of Rachel Maddow). Not only is killing gays endorsed by the Bible, Molotov claims, "our founding fathers also made homosexuality a capital offense. Molotov even finds further justification for the law, claiming that in the 1800s, the country "was oppressed by an evil homosexual king, King Mwanga."
Besides, Molotov lectures, "Uganda is a soverign, democratic nation that's free to make its own laws." Despite his admission earlier in the video that the law would make homosexuality a capital offense, Molotov goes on to claim: "They don't want to kill the homosexuals; they just want them to stop practicing homosexual acts." That follows in the footsteps of anti-gay activists who attempt to separate homosexual behavior from homosexual orientation.
Molotov then claims: "If gay Ugandans don't like the law, they are more than free to leave." He doesn't mention that the law would also apply to Ugandans living outside the country, even in countries where homosexuality is legal.
Molotov again insists that "don't think that our founding fathers wouldn't support this legislation all the way." The on-screen text when he says this? "When Character Was King..."
Leave it up to Molotov to equate killing people you don't like with "character."
Most shockingly -- or maybe not -- Molotov concludes by quoting Martin Luther King: "The moral arm of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice." He adds: "Ugandans, stay on the right side of history."
"Abolition of homosexuality," indeed. Molotov must be wetting himself at the prospect.
The lawyer for the co-author of a book attacking the Council on American-Islamic Relations is taking an unusual response to CAIR's lawsuit against the writer: CAIR doesn't legally exist.
No, really. A Dec. 21 WorldNetDaily article lays out the defense being offered by Daniel Horowitz, lawyer for David Gaubatz and his son, Chris Gaubatz, who used his job as a CAIR intern to steal documents from the group:
An exhibit filed by Horowitz with his reply to CAIR shows a search on the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs website for the name Council on American-Islamic Relations produced no results. Further, a search for "name availability" on the same site showed Council on American-Islamic Relations was available while the names Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network and Council on American-Islamic Relations Foundation were not. Both of the latter names turned up in a search for incorporated names.
"CAIR is not a valid entity and even if it were, the exposure of its inner workings is part of the price it pays for being a controversial group in a hotly contested arena," Horowitz says in the brief's conclusion. "If the press or publishers had to prove the purity of their sources before publishing we would never hear about the various romances of Tiger Woods (which might be a relief) but we also never have heard of the Pentagon Papers."
That seems to be a bit of a desperate effort on Horowitz's part. After all, he had already capituated to CAIR to return the purloined documents (until the FBI conveniently intervened).
Pretending that CAIR doesn't technically exist is Horowitz's apparent attempt to get out of the most damning issuethe Gaubatzes face -- that Chris Gaubatz reportedly signed a confidentiality agreement when he began the internship. The article offerds no indication that Horowitz is claiming Gaubatz never signed one; rather, he notes that CAIR has not been able to produce evidence any agreement was signed, and that even if one was signed, "this document would have been signed between a non-existent corporate entity and Chris Gaubatz. There need to be two parties to a contract."
That's trying to escape on a technicality. While that's argably Horowitz's job as a lawyer, it's also a demonstration of the bad faith in which the Gaubatzes operated in their little, and possibly illegal, sting operation.
Farah Buys Into Idea That Obama's Nobel Is Unconstitutional Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah writes in his Dec. 22 WorldNetDaily column:
Many have questioned whether Barack Obama truly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
That's not the purpose of this column.
As far as I am concerned, the Nobel ceased to have much in the way of honorific qualities after it was bestowed on such unsavory and unworthy candidates as Al Gore, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev and Kofi Annan.
My concern about Barack Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize is that it was patently unconstitutional.
I guess that should surprise no one given Obama's penchant for unconstitutional activity.
Yet, this one is flagrant, personal and, worst of all, petty.
Speaking of flagrant, personal and petty, Farah goes on to suggest that Obama "ignore[d] this constitutional provision" -- he claims that "an act of Congress would be necessary for him to accept the emolument" -- because "he considers himself above the law and the Constitution and/or because he really wanted to benefit personally from the award" and because "he actually seeks to undermine the foundational document of American government." Farah answered the first question earlier in the column by noting that Obama planned to donate the prize money to charity.
What Farah doesn't mention, of course, is that the emoluments clause has, in practice, routinely been ignored; there was no agitation to enforce it when Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize. Nor do we recall any outcry from Farah when Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf was awarded an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth.
So unless Farah is also demanding that Stormin' Norman relinquish his knighthood, he might want to give up this particular battle. After all, he has many other hateful Obama conspiracies to focus on.
David Limbaugh Repeats False Smears of Jennings Topic: WorldNetDaily
In his Dec. 18 syndicated column -- published by WorldNetDaily and Newsmax -- David Limbaugh makes numerous false, misleading and anti-gay claims about "known homosexual activist" Kevin Jennings. Media Matters has the details.
Few pieces of legislation have as many devils in their details as this now-2,700 page monstrosity.
But let's focus on one example of Obamacare's future victims so that men, women and children can grasp what it means for them:
1. Obamacare could kill Santa Claus.
2. Pundits have long noted that Santa is among the most politically incorrect role models in our culture. He wears fur and exploits reindeer and elves. He threatens our global climate by operating a toy factory at the pristine but environmentally fragile North Pole.
3. Santa may be associated with the religious right and is judgmental — rewarding children not equally or by favoring minorities, but based on his subjective assessment of who has been “naughty” or “nice.”
It’s more than a bit ironic that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is threatening to work right up until Christmas to pass legislation that could allow federal dollars to pay for the deaths of untold numbers of unborn children.
In the days before Jesus Christ was born in a manger in Bethlehem, another bureaucrat, King Herod, was responsible for what would be called the Massacre of the Innocents, after he ordered all male infants to be killed to prevent the prophesied King of the Jews from replacing him on the throne.
Thank God, indeed, that abortion was not legal when the angels visited Mary to announce the immaculate conception of the Son of God, who would not only be born but would conquer death so that every human being could spend eternity in paradise.
Thank God, also, that Herod’s scheme did not succeed in killing the Man who was born to save all of mankind, including the generations yet to be born.
For those who deny that the health-care bill crafted by Sen. Harry Reid -– or Herod Reid as it seems fitting to call him –- does not allow for taxpayer dollars to be used to pay for an abortion, let me quote here from page 120 of the more than 2,000 page document that is available for review.
Starr appears to be merely regurgitating unverified claims by anti-abortion activists -- as apparently lifted from another CNS article -- that the compromise agreed to by Sen. Ben Nelson, in some convoluted way, permits federal funding for abortion.
Remember that Starr is not a columnist -- she is a reporter. In any other news organization, a reporter who expressed such an extreme opinion would have been disciplined -- at the very least, barred from reporting on the subject -- but at CNS, such a vengeful opinion will probably earn Starr a raise. After all, it does fit in with her anti-abortion activism as expressed through baseless, unbalanced attacks on Planned Parenthood.
CNS purports to endeavor "to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story." It's unclear how Starr or CNS believe smearing a politican as a baby-killer fulfills that goal.
When America was America, films like these were made in large quantities. Rita Hayworth, Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, Ingrid Bergman, Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Cyd Charisse, Ava Gardner, Sophia Loren, Deborah Kerr, Cary Grant, Robert Mitchum, Paul Muni, John Garfield, Hedy Lamarr, Gene Tierney, Taylor, Burton, Vivien Leigh, Laughton, James Mason, Marlene Dietrich — I derive succor from these people the way the folks on the left pop meds.
This is why I do what I do. Islamic law forbids representational art. It forbids music. With its laws allowing polygamy and wife-beating, it forbids love. And these are the kinds of laws they are trying to bring in to Europe and America today, right under our noses.
And so that is why I fight: for art, music, and love.
Obama Death Threats Pile Up in WND Poll Comment Thread Topic: WorldNetDaily
Today's WorldNetDaily reader poll asks: "What would you like to give Obama for Christmas?" Unsurprisingly, the top three answers are birther-related, with one of them being, "A one-way ticket back to Kenya."
What is also arguably unsurprising are the death threats piling up in the comment thread:
And Joseph Farah wonders why people don't consider WND a legitimate news site...
UPDATE: This is not the first time that WND readers have felt moved to threaten Obama's life.
This Just In: MRC Still Hates Ted Kennedy Topic: Media Research Center
Ted Kennedy may have died months ago, but the Media Research Center's visceral hatred of the man will apparently burn for all eternity.
We've already documented how the MRC has repeatedly falsely portrayed an article about Kennedy as praise of him -- named it the MRC's quote of the year, in fact -- when, in context, it was criticism. Now, the MRC has demonstrated it plans to keep the flame of hatred for Ted Kennedy and obsession with Chappaquiddick alive in perpetuity by naming another Kennedy-related quote its quote of the year.
This year's winner is not a network or even a newspaper employee, but a blogger, Melissa Lafsky, who is described by the MRC as "Discover magazine deputy web editor... who formerly worked on the New York Times’s Freakonomics blog," and whose post appeared at Huffington Post. Lafsky had the misfortune of running afoul of the MRC's Kennedy hate machine by writing upon Kennedy's death that "[One wonders what] Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded. Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it."
The MRC's awards are supposedly for "the year's worst reporting." It's a bit of a stretch to treat a blog post by a non-journalist as "reporting." But that's how much the MRC hates Kennedy.
That's not all. A Dec. 20 NewsBusters post by MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham assails a Parade magazine article on Kennedy's widow for not hating the late "pro-abortion, pro-gay ultraliberal" senator as much as he does. And, of course, he has to add: "'Tell that to Mary Jo Kopechne' was not a sentence that appeared in the article."
Um, Tim? Teddy's dead. Has been for months. Get over it already.
Farah Still Wants You to Think WND Is A Legitimate News Organization Topic: WorldNetDaily
Poor Joseph Farah -- he still thinks his WorldNetDaily is a legitimate news organization.
Farah plays the victim yet again in his Dec. 19 column, complaining that WND was "the only legitimate news agency banned by the U.N. convention" in Copenhagen. He goes on to insist: "As a 30-year veteran of the American press, I caution you that this is a threat to all the free press and your free speech and rights to self-governance. This is how it begins. If the U.N. can get away with denying access to a well-established and popular news agency, accredited to cover both the White House and the Congress of the United States, it can deny anyone."
Farah's first problem is believing that WND is in any legitimate. How can a "news" organization that has published lieafterlie about President Obama and his administration be considered in any way legitimate?
His second problem is that little "Death to the U.N.!" thing, which he curiously fails to mention. And asbefore, he fails to explain why he's demanding press credentials from a group whose legitimacy he does not recognize and which he would like to see destroyed.
Which, of course, is yet another reason why WND cannot be considered legitimate. But Farah's too busy throwing a pity party for himself to notice.