WND's Farah Just Can't Stop Lying About 'Civilian National Security Force' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is a congenital liar, and one of the things he and WND have lied about is President Obama's statement about a "civilian national security force." Farah does so again in his Feb. 3 WND column:
Is the U.S. government getting ready for a war we don’t know about?
And, if that’s why Washington is stockpiling massive amounts of ammunition (hollow points, by the way), why is Homeland Security doing the buying instead of the Defense Department?
I have some theories.
Many of you will remember a story I broke a long time ago – about presidential candidate Barack Obama’s little-noticed announcement that, if elected in 2008, he wanted to create a “civilian national security force” as big, as strong and as well-funded as the Defense Department.
Here’s what he actually said at a campaign stop in Colorado July 2, 2008: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Could what we see happening now in the Department of Homeland Security be the beginning of Obama’s dream and our constitutional nightmare?
These words – “civilian national security force” – have haunted me ever since I first read them.
Obama has never explained what he meant.
He’s never been called to account for that remark.
Doesn’t this sound like police-state talk to you?
As we've repeatedlydocumented, Obama has explained what he meant by a "civilian national security force" -- expansion of the foreign service.
Farah has been telling this lie for more than four years. Either he's too stupid to do any basic research to find out the truth, or he's such a craven liar that he'lll continue to push the falsehood because it's good for his bottom line.
NewsBusters Disappears Limbaugh From Sandra Fluke's Story Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center likes to disappear Rush Limaugh's role in making Sandra Fluke into a prominent activist -- and, as a consequence, the MRC's role in endorsing Limbaugh's misogyny and trying to protect him from the consequences of it.
The latest example is a Feb. 1 NewsBusters post by Jeffrey Meyer, who complains that Fluke is "a Georgetown Law student who 'testified' before a Democratic policy committee -- not a congressional panel contrary to popular belief -- became a recurring guest on MSNBC, and even spoke at the Democratic National Convention last year." Meyer doesn't mention thatit's because of Limbaugh's three-day tirade of misogyny against Fluke that she was catapulted to prominence beyond her congressional testimony.
WND's Mercer Still Unhappy That Non-White People Voted for Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
Talk of immigration reform has prompted Ilana Mercer to get all apartheid on us again. She declares in her Jan. 31 WorldNetDaily column:
A tipping point in the demographic shift in the U.S. population had returned Barack Obama to power for a second term. A moratorium on mass immigration, buttressed by strong secessionist and states’ rights movements, might just help delay another such bomb from detonating.
Lest we miss the veiled meaning in her reference to a "demographic shift," Mercer links to an earlier column in which she discusses "the axis of Asians, blacks, browns" (and brown-nosing bimbos) who handed the Democrats a handy victory," insists that "America doesn't need more people; it needs better people" (and declared that granting women the right to vote is a "pox").
Mercer goes on to lament that "America’s historic majority" -- you know, white people -- supported Mitt Romney over Obama but was "outnumbered as a voting bloc" by immigrants who are "for the most, in Latin American" and "ess educated than other sections of the U.S. population."
Mercer concludes: "The same Republican cobra-head that rose to spit at Romney whenever he broke from the pack is now leading the charge for amnesty and against America’s waning historical majority." Only in the race-obsessed world of Ilana Mercer is the existence of non-white people in America a threat.
'ObamaCare Survival Guide' Book Is A Newsmax Operation Topic: Newsmax
Over the past several weeks, Newsmax has been heavilypromoting a book called the "ObamaCare Survival Guide." Unsurprisingly, it's a negative view of Obamacare, as Politico notes. Newsmax, however, doesn't want to tell you just how closely involved it is with the book.
You may have seen the commercial for Obamacare911.com. You may not know that Obamacare911.com redirects to a page at the Newsmax store for its usual loss-leader "special offer" with a few free issues of Newsmax magazine and a health newsletter thrown in (in the hope that you fail to cancel them so they can charge your credit card $39 each for a yearly subscription).
But Newsmax is even deeper with this book that it will publicly admit: Newsmax owns the book's publisher.
The publisher of the "ObamaCare Survival Guide" is Humanix Books, which claims to have been "continuously publishing since 1969, making it one of the oldest publishing houses in the South Eastern United States." Humanix's website makes no mention of its ownership by Newsmax.
But if you look at the copyright page in the "ObamaCare Survival Guide," there it is: "Humanix books is a division of Newsmax Media."
Why doesn't Newsmax want to promote the fact that it has a publishing division? It's not like it's anything new -- WorldNetDaily has operated a publishing operation for several years. Of course, WND Books does carry the taint of its parent -- something Newsmax is perhaps trying to avoid by pretending Humanix is completely separate.
Still, as it publishes more conservative-leaning books, as one can reasonably expect, expect Humanix to get that conservative-publisher reputation. Can it avoid the WND taint? We shall see.
The Republican Party has deliberately, carefully failed to do anything about the in-your-face bogus “birth certificate” Mr. Obama endorsed and posted on the White House website almost two years ago.
The majority faction are simply too scared of the damage the left would cause to their reputations if they dared publicly to question the legitimacy of “Black Jesus,” as his staff call him. For the hard left have long used a simple and effective tactic to protect their criminals. They follow Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, not the least of which is that the right have all the best arguments, so do not argue with them. Instead, make it plain that if they dare to speak out you will relentlessly destroy their reputations.
The Republicans, frightened for their reputations, have funked it. So you are now stuck with Mr. Obama for another four years.
-- Christopher Monckton, Jan. 21 WorldNetDaily column
Personally, I have counted Obama as a devil for a long time. I was fortunate enough to have commenced my study of him before most, and I can find few things more contemptible than his being able to look America in the eye (as it were) and quote the founders as well as Scripture, having done what he has done – not to mention what he has in store.
While the scenario I relate remains incomprehensible even to a goodly number of Obama detractors, the direct and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Logically, it just isn’t that difficult to surmise that someone who grew up infused with a hatred for America and admiring history’s greatest serial murderers, and who is a malignant narcissist himself, might perceive it as his destiny to outdo them all.
What difference does it make? Does it matter that a usurping president and grossly incompetent secretary of state lied to the nation throughout the presidential election regarding the cause of the attacks? And what difference does it make that U.S. foreign policy is conducted by Mrs. Clinton’s personal attaché and a practicing Muslim, Huma Abedin?
Barack Hussein Obama, our technology dictator, has wasted no time declaring his intentions for his lame-duck term in office. If the first four years of Obama were bad, the second four promise to be worse. In his first four years, Obama set his sights on medical technology, nationalizing a massive portion of an American economy already enfeebled by Democratic tax-and-spend policies. In the next four years, Obama will target self-defense technology – guns – as he attempts to infringe on the Second Amendment.
The clock is ticking on the American Empire as the “dreams from my father” continue to become ever more entrenched. Gun confiscation, Obamacare and runaway inflation, to name but a few of BHO’s atrocities, are moving ahead full steam.
Oh … and so, too, is the possibility of a third, fourth and fifth term – and beyond! – for the media-invented president whose arrogance now has him focused on making 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue his permanent address.
Here is an uncomfortable pop quiz: Who has killed more children, Adam Lanza or Barack Obama? We’ll hold off on the answer for a few paragraphs while we look at the state of governmental excess – including killing – in America. But you can probably guess the correct answer from the manner in which I have posed the question.
There was a line in Barack Obama’s Inauguration speech that should demonstrate to any reasoning, reflective, thoughtful person that the man occupying the White House either does not know the difference between right and wrong or is a shameless purveyor of evil.
They say that birds of a feather flock together. And so it was at the recent inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama on the U.S. Capitol steps, a man who has lied his way into being placed on presidential ballots in now two elections, 2008 and 2012, and Beyoncé, the diva who has been forced to admit that she did not sing the national anthem at this solemn event, but instead lip-synced it, fittingly appeared on the same “fraudulent stage.” As the readers of this publication know all too well, Obama is not eligible to be president, because he is not, as required by the U.S. Constitution, a natural born citizen. To run for president, and to be elected president, a candidate must be born within the United States or its territories to two American citizen parents.
Thus, as various eligibility challenges – several of which I have filed for voters and rival presidential candidates in Alabama and Florida (see www.larryklayman.com) – wind their way through the courts, the stakes are gargantuan in terms of Obama’s legal future and our own lives and the life of the nation as a whole. And, if we can find that one judge and legal forum who and which will show some courage in this age of cowardice, and rule that Obama is not eligible under the U.S. Constitution to be president, then perhaps we will not only be able to nullify ALL of his illegal executive orders to date, but also force him to resign “Watergate Nixon” style.
MRC Ignores Actual Cost Of Achievements Done Without Income Tax Topic: Media Research Center
Liz Thatcher marks the 100th anniversary of the federal income tax with a Jan. 30 MRC Business & Media Institute article headlined "10 Achievements America Accomplished Without the Federal Income Tax."
But in focusing only on the income tax, T hatcher conveniently forgets how some of those things were actually accomplished. For instance:
2. Transcontinental Railroad
Steam power was soon put to use on land and railroads began to spring up across the U.S. To span the entire nation from coast to coast, the idea of the Transcontinental Railroad was born. Through the Pacific Railroad Act, the Central Pacific and Union Pacific Railroad companies were encouraged to compete to see who could get railroads that connected the east to the west fastest. This took only seven years, and completely transformed America into a unified nation.
As the History.com article Thatcher links to illustrates, the transcontinental railroad was facilitated by a massive government giveaway to the railroads building it:
By the terms of the bill, the Central Pacific Railroad Company would start building in Sacramento and continue east across the Sierra Nevada, while a second company, the Union Pacific Railroad, would build westward from the Missouri River, near the Idaho-Nebraska border. The two lines of track would meet in the middle (the bill did not designate an exact location) and each company would receive 6,400 acres of land (later doubled to 12,800) and $48,000 in government bonds for every mile of track built. From the beginning, then, the building of the transcontinental railroad was set up in terms of a competition between the two companies.
Another item cited by Thatcher:
3. Westward Expansion
Though the left hates the term “Manifest Destiny,” westward expansion helped firmly establish the United States as it is today. It took place as settlers in America decided to pursue the opportunities of owning large amounts of land, farming and settling new towns. It was the ultimate American Dream, and by 1840, nearly 40 percent of the American population had ventured out to explore new territories.
Thatcher doesn't mention that "manifest destiny" also included killing a lot of Native Americans and driving the rest off their land. Is that really a better process than a federal income tax? Thatcher apparently thinks so.
MRC Won't Call Daily Caller Conservative Topic: Media Research Center
In a Jan. 31 Media Research Center item, Scott Whitlock complains that a CBS analyst said that accusations of prostitution against Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez have "all the earmarks of an orchestrated smear campaign," given its anonymous, uncorroborated sourcing and its promotion by the conservative blog The Daily Caller. Whitlock further complains that CNS played a clip of Harry Reid defending Menendez: "I always consider the source, and all anyone here has to look at is the source where this comes from."
But Whitlock never explains why Reid is correct to make such a statement. Whitlock states that "The allegations were broke by the Daily Caller," but he does not point out that the Daily Caller is a conservative-leaning outfit with a questionable record of accuracy. Whitlock did make sure, however, to let us know that the ethics group CREW "is a liberal organization."
Whitlock goes on to complain: "As a comparison, when lewd details came out about Republican Congressman Mark Foley in 2006, the networks filed an amazing 152 stories in just the first 12 days.: But the Foley story was much better sourced than the Menendez story is.
WND's Kupelian Pushes Bogus Homsexuality-Pedophilia Link Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian writes in a Jan. 30 column denouncing the Boy Scouts for considering allowing gays to take part:
Now the big question in all this, of course, is the following: With these sex-abuse cases within the Boy Scouting organization, just as those within the Catholic Church, are we dealing with actual “pedophiles” or with predatory homosexuals?
Virtually all defenders of the gay agenda will angrily denounce the mere suggestion that homosexuals could be victimizers here, or that the two groups could even overlap.
Contrary to the media myth that the Catholic Church’s problems are primarily with “pedophile priests” – terminology which safely absolves homosexuals from suspicion – the major portion of the church’s sexual-abuse problem has been the infiltration of its seminaries by homosexuals. In fact, widespread cases of predatory homosexual priests created a full-blown crisis for the church.
“The real problem the Catholic Church faces,” explains Father Donald B. Cozzens, author of “The Changing Face of the Priesthood,” is the “disproportionate number of gay men that populate our seminaries.”
That's not true. Margaret Smith, a John Jay College criminologist who worked on a 2004 study of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, says it's an oversimplification to blame sexual abuse on gays. While most of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature, "participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man."
Further, analysis of research shows that gay or bisexual men are not more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.
Nevertheless, Kupelian insists on pushing the unfounded link between homosexuality and pedophilia by parsing the definition of a pedophile:
“Pedophilia” is, by definition, sexual contact with a pre-pubescent child. Most of the boys molested by “pedophile priests” have been pubescent teens. Likewise, in the scout world, although we can comfortably indulge the fantasy that there is a wide gulf between the land of homosexuals and the land of same-sex pedophiles, this does not comport with the known facts. (If you want, you can read Scientific American’s explanation here – but bottom line, many of these sex-abuse cases, whether in Scouts or in church, do not involve actual pedophiles.)
Well, no. A 2011 John Jay report reiterates its earlier findings:
The report concludes that the vast majority of clergy sex offenders are not pedophiles at all but were situational generalists violating whoever they had access to. Pedophiles, by definition, seek sexual gratification from pre-pubescent children of one gender and target this age and gender group (especially while under stress). Clergy sexual offenders in the Church were more likely to be targeting whoever was around them (and they had unsupervised access to) regardless of age and gender.
The researchers conclude that there is no causative relationship between either celibacy or homosexuality and the sexual victimization of children in the Church. Therefore, being celibate or being gay did not increase the risk of violating children. So, blaming the clergy abuse crisis in the Catholic Church on gay men or celibacy is unfounded.
Sure, it's convenient for Kupelian to continue to publish discredited myths. But the fact that he does so is just another reason why nobody believes WND.
WND Illustrates Article On Gays In Boy Scouts With Jerry Sandusky Topic: WorldNetDaily
Earlier this week, WorldNetDaily used "1984"-style imagery to illustrate an article on immigration reform, even though the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Now, WND is illustrating a story on the Boy Scouts of America considering reversing its ban on gays with a picture of convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.
The front-page image:
The article itself, by Dave Tombers, uses the same image:
Tombers' article is heavily biased, quoting only anti-gay activists who make claims Tombers does not challenge or fact-check.
MRC Writer Bashes Al Gore Book He Hasn't Read Topic: Media Research Center
Mike Ciandella uses a Jan. 28 MRC Business & Media Institute post to attack Al Gore's new book "The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change" as nothing more than Gore "pushing the eco-agenda." But Ciandella shows no evidence of having actually read the book.
Ciandella cites as his sources a "promotional video" for the book and a New York Times review -- not the book itself. Another clue that Ciandella didn't read the book is that his post appeared the day before Gore's book actually went on sale.
Ciandella goes on to complain: "Despite Al Gore’s insistence that it is an accepted scientific fact, more than 1,000 scientists are on record dissenting from the so-called 'consensus' on climate change." But how many scientists are there? A lot. Meanwhile, this graphic is more illustrative of the scientific consensus on climate change:
NEW ARTICLE: Vox Day Has Issues Topic: WorldNetDaily
Theodore Beale's nom de plume may have stopped writing his WorldNetDaily column, but he'll be remembered for his wild conspiracy theories and racially charged, misogynistic rhetoric. Read more >>
Newsmax Falsely Spins Reagan Home Story To Attack Obama Topic: Newsmax
Marti Lotman writes in a Jan. 30 Newsmax article: "The University of Chicago Medical Center has announced plans to turn Ronald Reagan’s childhood home in Chicago into a parking lot for President Barack Obama’s library."
That's a complete, utter lie.
As Media Matters explains, while it is true that the University of Chicago Medical Center is planning to tear down a house where Reagan lived for a year when he was 4 years old, there is no evidence whatsoever that it would be torn down for an Obama presidential library -- in fact, a location for the library has not even been chosen -- and the university certainly did not "announce" it would do what Lotman said it did.
Even the Washington Times Communities article from which Lotman lifted her item never claimed that the university made such an announcement. Rather, it engages in a lot of baseless speculation and cites only unnamed "opponents of the demolition " as claiming it would be torn down for an Obama library -- which, again, has not even been awarded to the university as of yet.
Apparently, the idea of Obama trashing Reagan's legacy was too good for Newsmax to fact-check. Or even to double-check basic reading comprehension.
UPDATE: WorldNetDaily latched onto the bogus story as well, reproducing part of the Washington Times article, presumably without permission.
Raging homophobe Les Kinsolving is back at it again in his Jan. 28 WorldNetDaily column, in which he complains that the pastor at President Obama's inauguration "included in his benediction an endorsement of same-sex marriage (as did Mr. Obama) with no such inaugural devotional endorsement of many other alternative sexual orientations."
After reproducing a statement by the presidential inauguration committee about how the Obama administration has a "vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans," Kinsolving sneers: "This inevitably raises the consideration that 'all Americans' include pedophiles, polygamists, polyandrists, urophiliacs and zoophiliacs – among other alternate sexual orientations."
Kinsolving just loves to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality, despite the complete lack of factual basis for doing so.