Leavened with malice and deceit, they rise to power, these hardcore socialists like Obama. Once positioned to do so, they move to consolidate unbridled tyranny. Their infamous goal: to impose the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
In dealing with the threat Obama represents, Americans have come to the point Abraham Lincoln recognized as critical in the affairs of a free people. It is the point where we must say, “Passion has helped us” but no longer helps enough. Demonstrations and rallies and fervent pleas petitioning those in government may vent our feelings, but they cannot, by themselves, secure our goal. As people loyal to the republican form of government the Constitution aims to perpetuate we must – here, now and urgently – act on the logic of self-disciplined liberty from which it derives.
With “reason, cold calculating, unimpassioned reason” we must look to the impeachment/removal process, laid out in the U.S. Constitution, to “furnish … the materials for our … support and defence” of liberty.
To this end, it falls upon We the People to fashion appropriate non-violent civil disobedience to get rid of Obama. If Gandhi could cause the fall of the British Empire in India, if the masses in Egypt could rid themselves of the Muslim Brotherhood and if the Poles could cast off communism years ago, then we Americans can send Barack Hussein Obama – the most unethical and corrupt president in American history – packing. The time has now come to put words to deeds and wage the Second American Revolution.
Indeed, once caught abusing his executive authority to target the very U.S. citizens he’s sworn to serve, even a nominally honorable man would immediately reverse course, resign and accept the consequences of his illegal actions.
May Gates’s memoir and the subsequent public debate it will engender open up the gates of hell against Obama, Hillary and the Democratic Socialist Party for committing treason against our heroic troops who gave their lives, blood and treasure in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars … for nothing.
Does Obama really believe that a nation could elect a black president in 2008 while black Americans had still not achieves “anything approaching formal equality, much less real equality”? Perhaps he does. Perhaps he thinks he’s that special – a monumental personality who could overcome the racist tendencies of a country by getting elected to the highest office in the land, a nation not even close to approaching equality in theory or reality.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright recently emerged from under the proverbial bus to address a crowd celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Asserting that there was “unfinished business” in the civil rights struggle with regard to a “voting rights bill gutted by a right-wing dominated Supreme Court,” he went on to compare the tea party to lynch mobs of the Old South and claimed that “some folks [are] doing everything they can to get that black man out of their White House” (emphasis added).
And well we should be doing everything we can to get that black man out of our White House – but it has nothing to do with his being black. It has to do with his being a subversive, a saboteur, an Islamist-enabler and a Marxist whose objectives are all focused upon destroying this nation as an ongoing economic concern, a world power and a functioning republic.
Why would an individual sworn to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States show such little concern respecting things that assault the practical basis for the form of government it establishes? There is no answer consistent with his oath. Instead such nonchalance is solid evidence that Obama targets America’s liberty, as do all those who belittle the significance of issues that affect the moral judgment and character of the American people.
Much like the terrorists who targeted the Towers in New York, which symbolized America’s material commerce, these scornful elitists target the pillars of moral and spiritual commerce that uphold our political constitution. But when liberty’s pillars fail, the smoke that rises from their crater will signify the fatal triumph of our stupefaction, courtesy of those, like Obama, who are working hard to make us too stupid to be free.
Newsmax Comes to Huckabee's Defense Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is standing on the side of Mike Huckabee when it comes to his comments accusing Democrats of believing that "Uncle Sugar" must provide for women who "cannot control their libido."
A Jan. 24 article by Melanie Batley repeating Huckabee's claim that NBC’s Kasie Hunt and CNN’s Dana Bash distorted his meaning when they “erroneously tweeted” his remarks. But has Slate's Dave Weigel points out, both outlets corrected their original tweets, and all reporting since has been based on accurate quotes of what Huckabee said.
Batley also repeated a Fox News claim that Democrats were "trying to fundraise off of Mr. Huckabee's taken-out-of-context quotes." But she didn't report that Huckabee is fund-raising off his remarks too.
John Gizzi joined in with a Jan. 24 article touting how Republicans "rallied behind" Huckabee, complaining that "breathless reports in the media focused almost exclusively upon 54 words that dealt with the Democrats' claim that Republicans have been waging a 'war on women.'"
Then, in a Jan. 25 article, Todd Beamon claimed that Huckabee "again attacked the mainstream liberal media bias that led to inaccurate reporting of his remarks about government-funded contraception this week, saying he was 'offended by their misinterpretation.'" Again, the media has been accurately reporting his remarks. Weigel notes: "For Huckabee to be a victim here, the rest of the media would have had to rely on the botched quotes. Didn't happen."
Beamon also touted how Huckabee claimed White House press secretary Jay Carney "was reacting to a completely phony story" when Huckabee's remarks were read to him at a White House press briefing. In fact, as Weigel notes, the reporter who read Huckabee's quote to Carney got it right:
The next day, as this Twitter thread started by Matt Lewis demonstrates, conservatives were piling on reporters for refusing to admit that "the narrative" was false. It's a fascinating exercise in ref-working, an attempt to define Huckabee's gaffe as a media gaffe.
WND's Loudon Pushes False Claim That Tax Money For Planned Parenthood Pays For Abortions Topic: WorldNetDaily
Gina Loudon writes in her Jan. 26 WorldNetDaily column in which she complains about arguing with her liberal father:
I asked him why Planned Parenthood should get a million dollars a day in taxpayer funding of abortions that more than half of taxpayers don’t support, and yet he sees corruption when the same Congress that funds Planned Parenthood votes to investigate and prosecute the proven presidential lying scandal.
As we've repeatedlypointedout, federal money to Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions outside of Hyde Amendment restrictions.
Perhaps Loudon's father would have more respect for her views if they were more grounded in facts.
MRC's Graham Bashes Media For Engaging In Same Kind of Journalism The MRC Does Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham complains in a Jan. 25 NewsBusters post, headlined "USA Today Writes Unopposed Press Release for Liberal Virginia Attorney General's Gay-Marriage Move":
One way that liberal journalists promote a “rapid string of victories for the gay marriage movement” is by utterly shutting out any voice that dares speak in opposition to it. In Friday’s USA Today, reporter Richard Wolf (not MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe) wrote an entire story on how new Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring refuses to defend a gay marriage “ban,” and Wolf refused to quote any opponents.
One could say that USA Today was following the journalistic example of NewsBusters' sister operation, CNSNews.com, which frequently writesunopposedpressreleases promoting right-wing activists and policies.
Yet Graham does not dare criticize his fellow Media Research Center employees for engaging in the very same kind of journalism he's bashing USA Today for.
Graham might be taken more seriously as a media critic if he didn't exempt those who adhere to his right-wing ideology from criticism.
WND Fires Up The D'Souza Conspiracy Bandwagon Topic: WorldNetDaily
If there's a right-wing, anti-Obama conspiracy to be had, WorldNetDaily wants in on it. So it's no surprise that it's been flooding the zone regarding the arrest of right-wing filmmaker, discredited Obama-hater and adulterous former college president Dinesh D'Souza for campaign finance violations.
A Jan. 24 article by Jerome Corsi quoted the producer of D'Souza's films, Gerald Molen, as claiming that D'Souza's arrest is "political prosecution" comparable to the tactics used on the communist former Soviet Union to quell dissent. Molen concedes that D'Souza did what he is being accused of, but claims that it's "the equivalent of prosecuting a political dissident in the Soviet Union for jay-walking." Molen also accused the Obama administration of "selective enforcement," but Corsi provided no instances of the crime D'Souza is accused of failing to be prosecuted in other instances.
A Jan. 24 WND article by Gina Loudon resorted to a woman hiding behind a fake name -- "a woman executive at a major motion picture studio who is known online as Anita Gunn" -- to accuse Obama of acting "Nixonian" despite the complete lack of evidence of any direct Obama role. Loudon also claims that "the Friends of Abe, a private conservative organization in Hollywood, was being targeted by the Internal Revenue Service," leaving out the fact that Friends of Abe applied for a non-profit tax status that opened itself up to such scrutiny as part of the process to obtain that non-profit status.
Another Jan. 24 article, by Garth Kant, quoted another right-wing filmmaker, anti-immigration activist Dennis Michael Lyncy, claiming that the goal of D'Souza's arrest was to stop his upcoming film. Lynch also said of D'Souza that "nothing in his film has been shown to be false. Everything has been shown to be true.” Which is an utter lie.
WND editor Joseph Farah uses his Jan. 26 column to rant that D'Souza's indictment was part of Obama's " all-out war on the First Amendment," claiming that "Dinesh D’Souza is now officially an enemy of the state."
Pamela Geller also runs to D'Souza's defense, ranting, "America, put down the newly legalized weed that Obama is touting and join us in the fight for freedom."
With the fizzing of his birther conspiracies (not that they'll ever admit it, of course), WND needed a new cudgel to bash Obama with. It has found one in a prosecution of D'Souza an offense that even D'Souza's supporters concede he performed.
CNS Loves That Anti-Abortion Activist Loves Its Slanted Coverage Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com got a little mash note in the form of a tweet from dishonest anti-abortion activist Lila Rose praising its coverage of the March for Life, to which CNS giddily responded, "Thanks Lila!"
Should CNS, which tries to make people believe it's a "news" organization, really be so happy about praise from an activist whose career is all about making sure only one part of the abortion story is told?
Then again, CNS thinks comparing random things to abortion is "news," and that's the kind of "news" that makes biased activists like Lila Rose happy. REal journalists? Not so much.
WND Still Fluffing Joe Arpaio Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily loves Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio for allowing that shoddy Cold Case Posse investigation of President Obama's "eligibility" to happen -- that's why he's gotten nothing but favorable coverage at WND (despite WND's insistence that it has no sacred cows). That Arpaio-fluffing continues in a Jan. 24 article:
If you thought the pink underwear and chain-gang uniforms were tough justice, get a load of what America’s toughest sheriff is forcing inmates to do now.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County is forcing 38 inmates who desecrated American flags inside his jail to eat only bread and water for a week.
“These inmates have destroyed the American flag that was placed in their cells,” Arpaio told CNN. “Tearing them, writing on them, stepping on them, throwing them in the toilet, trash or wherever they feel. It’s a disgrace … this is government property that they are destroying, and we will take action against those who act this way.”
Arpaio implemented the American flag jailhouse initiative in November. It includes listening to the “Star-Spangled Banner” every morning and “God Bless America” every night over the intercom system.
By contrast, you will not read anywhere at WND about how Maricopa County had to pay $3.75 million to the founders of an alternative weekly in Phoenix because Arpaio's office falsely arrested them, ostensibly for publishing Arpaio's home address in their newspaper but seemingly actually because the paper reported on Arpaio's abuses.
Which is funny, because WND also claims to serve "as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power." Not if those perpetrating said corruption and abuse of power are among WND's sacred cows, apparently.
Newsmax's Hirsen Upset With Meryl Streep's Criticism of Walt Disney Topic: Newsmax
James Hirsen devotes his Jan. 21 Newsmax column to defending the honor of Walt Disney against Meryl Streep calling him a "gender bigot" who allegedly supported an anti-Semitic lobbying group:
Streep is no doubt aware that the charge of bigotry is a toxic accusation that can travel at warp speed across the entertainment industry. Interestingly, her timing happened to coincide with the period in which Academy members were in the process of deliberating over Oscar nominees.
Streep’s insinuations about the Disney founder are actually at odds with the facts. In Disney biographer Neal Gabler’s words, there is “no evidence whatsoever in the extensive Disney Archives of any anti-Semitic remarks or actions by Walt.”
Like most of Hollywood at the time, Disney did not reflect modern enlightenment regarding racial equality. Gabler nevertheless points out in his biography on the mogul that Disney had sought consultation at the time from NAACP official Walter White and other African-American leaders, in conjunction with the partly animated movie “Song of the South,” in order to remove racially offensive material.
In fact, according to Gabler, the NAACP's White never actually participated in script revisions. And the film remains plenty racially offensive, what with its depiction of "Uncle Remus and his fellow smilin’, Massah-servin’ black folk": Disney hasn't released it in more than 25 years and won't be doing so anytime soon.
Hirsen then huffs that Streep may have cost Tom Hanks an Oscar nomination:
Streep’s comments may have had an effect on the voting patterns of Academy members. “Saving Mr. Banks,” a film on many of the short lists of Oscar analysts, was snubbed for a best picture nomination, as was Thompson for best actress, and the snub of the century, Tom Hanks, who played the role of Disney.
Hanks, who according to Streep portrayed a bigoted misogynist, was also passed over for his starring role in “Captain Phillips.”
WND Puts Words in Bill Nye's Mouth Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Jan. 24 unbylined WorldNetDaily article promotes an upcoming debate between evolutionist Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham. This being WND, it tilts toward the creationist view, to the point that it falsely puts words in Nye's mouth.
The headline on the article states, "Is Bible 'outdated book' and God and 'ogre'?" This suggests that Nye holds those views or has actually said those things. At no point does the article quote Nye saying anything, let alone that. In fact, those quotes are from Ham talking about atheists:
“These days, you’re finding them more aggressive, not against just creationism, but against people who believe in God. They call the Bible an outdated book. God is an ogre, if there is a God,” he said. “There’s all sorts of statements and name-calling.”
That spin also falsely implies that Nye is an atheist. In fact, Nye says he's agnostic and praises Christianity's sense of community.
These sorts of sloppy, malicious implications against Nye are just another reason that nobody believes WND.
We are created to mate with someone of the opposite sex. Any other sexual practice is artificial and often harmful, and the confused folks with those desires need a reality check. It’s totally possible to leave it all in the past, as the world’s many ex-homosexuals have done.
But try to tell that to the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and the various self-important “gay” bloggers. With claws and teeth exposed, the monster purveyors of “tolerance” try to come off as noble moralists, but confront them with the truth and the artifice falls. Their reactions are violent for a simple reason: fear.
They wonder if they might actually be heterosexuals after all.
The international outrage of homosexualists is being unleashed on Russia because of a new law. Russia actually allows open homosexuality among adults, but passed a law recently prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality to minors. So what’s the concern?
Don’t we all want the best for children? Apparently not. The fear of the pink mafia is that the soft underbelly of their movement will be exposed, showing they badly want to influence children and also that there’s no inborn homosexuality. This reality is the backbone of the new Russian law, because children can be influenced toward harmful behaviors that are unnecessary, unnatural and harmful.
Let me repeat that: unnecessary, unnatural and harmful. No teens are born to be “gay.”
New humans are an impossibility for two men or two women, even if the Supreme Court declares them “married.” No new life will ever result from these dead-end unions. At least one other person will always have to be involved to produce children.
The reality is, no one is a homosexual and everyone is a heterosexual. And those who have developed, fantasized and nurtured those “gay” feelings really don’t like reality. It makes them want to attack. Or it makes them start vicious organizations like GLAAD, to make the lies seem real and respectable.
It makes them stupid enough to try to take on the Russians. All I can say is, good luck with that.
Newsmax Baselessly Declares D'Souza Indictment To Be 'Payback' Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax once promoted a film that Dinesh D'Souza hadn't even made yet, so it's logical that it would run to D'Souza's defense after his indictment on charges of violating election funding laws. Earlier this morning, Newsmax proclaimed the charges to be "payback":
Funny thing, though: The Reuters article to which that headline linked made no mention of "payback" or political retribution. Further, neither Newsmax nor anyone else has provided any evidence that D'Souza's indictment had anything to do with his detatched-from-reality attacks on Obama, which he made into a film (that Newsmax also promoted).
At WND, Great Obama-Haters Think Alike By Taking Same Quote Out of Context Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah's Jan. 22 WorldNetDaily column begins with President Obama's statement during a New Yorker interview that "There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president." Farah uses the statement to accuse Obama of race-baiting.
Erik Rush's Jan. 22 WND column, strangely, does the exact same thing -- use the same Obama quote to launch a column bashing Obama for race-baiting.
Both Farah and Rush pulled off the twin feat of taking Obama's statement out of context, omitting the fact that Obama also said that "the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president."
If Farah and Rush had noted that Obama statement, it would have undermined their attacks on the president. They can't have the facts interfere with a good rant, it seems.
MRC's Double Standard on Disclosure Topic: Media Research Center
Mike Ciandella writes in a Jan. 16 MRC Business & Media Institute post:
Not only did NBC allow their special anchor Maria Shriver to promote her own report on “Nightly News,” they did it without disclosing that it was made in partnership with a group that liberal billionaire George Soros gave $7.3 million to.
Ciandella, however, has shown no interest in holding the organization he works for to the same disclosure standard. CNSNews.com, the Media Research Center's "news" division, has done the following over the past week or so:
Promoted the Family Research Council's study attacking contraception without mentioning the FRC's anti-contraception, anti-abortion agenda.
Devoted an article to promoting a claim by the Charlotte Lozier Institute without identifying the institute as an anti-abortion, anti-contraception group.
Hidden the anti-Obamacare agenda of an organization whose attacks on Obamacare CNS promoted.
Why is it OK for Ciandella's co-workers to engage in the same kind of non-disclosure he criticizes in others? Perhaps he should spend a little time explaining that.
You can't keep a good lie down, apparently. Burt Prelutsky writes in his Jan. 21 WorldNetDaily column:
After all, we have justices sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court today who have announced that they wouldn’t advise emerging nations to adopt our Constitution as their own. For that matter, Barack Obama has gone on record saying that the major flaw in our Constitution is that it doesn’t deal with the redistribution of wealth. Is it any wonder then that in spite of swearing his allegiance to the sacred document, he ignores what it says with unseemly regularity – things like states’ rights and the separation of powers – any damn time he feels like it?
As we first documented way back in 2008, Obama did not say that " the major flaw in our Constitution is that it doesn’t deal with the redistribution of wealth" -- he said that the fact that the Supreme Court under Earl Warren did not address wealth redistribution means it was not as radical a court as some people contend.
And Prelutsky's claim that a Supreme Court justice said she "wouldn’t advise emerging nations to adopt our Constitution as their own" is taken out of context. What Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, according to PolitiFact:
Ginsburg’s lengthy, nuanced responses repeatedly praised the values, concepts and language of the U.S. Constitution and called the people who wrote it "some of the most brilliant minds of the day "
Ginsburg warned that a constitution means "nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom." She emphasized the importance of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and of the separation of powers between Congress, the president and the judiciary that it created.
Ginsburg also pointed out that a long time had passed between the passage of the U.S. Constitution and Egypt’s current efforts.
"I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution," Ginsburg said early in the interview. "The United States in comparison to Egypt is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still enforced in the world. And it’s a constitution that starts out with three wonderful words: ‘We the people.’ "
"You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa.
"That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights [and] had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.
"Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution is Canada, [which] has a charter of rights and freedoms [and] dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. … I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others.''
At no point during the interview did Ginsburg say that she prefers the South African Constitution to the U.S. one. Her point was that it’s better for Egypt to base its constitution on more recent ones written after Word War II.
Not that Prelutsky or WND care about the truth, mind you...