Entangling America with illegal immigration to this degree naturally places the spotlight on the amnesty issue as well as what lawmakers are expected to do with all of these immigrants. What does Obama’s planned exodus mean for our country overall? Laws, programs and policies will undoubtedly be affected; this is a major game changer in American life and culture. The Obama administration knows that conflict will arise between American citizens and thousands of illegal immigrants freely entering America through our unsecured borders. Conflict is bound to happen.
Proponents of amnesty could not have asked for a more fitting scenario to “justify” their position. Obama’s planned exodus serves their interest well and forthrightly attacks national security at the expense of American citizens, American culture and, finally, America herself.
There are times when I suspect that people like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Boxer and Durbin, should have their photos on the wall of the post office as suspects in the killing of America. Other times, I remember that all of these people, along with the likes of Elijah Cummings, Brad Sherman, Henry Waxman, Sheila Jackson Lee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, have all been elected numerous times, so perhaps it’s America that’s chosen to commit suicide.
During a discussion of current events with a very knowledgeable colleague, we turned to the subject of just how many in Congress are realizing that they were deceived by Barack Obama and that we are in deep trouble with this president, as opposed to those who advocate his policies, are so narcissistic that they’ve no real concern for the direction in which he is taking this nation, or are mind-blowingly stupid.
The best strategy for anyone in government who recognizes the imperative in executing regime change in America is to transform Barack Obama from the beloved, groundbreaking First Black President upon whom so many placed their hope for change, into what he truly is – an American president who has committed treason – an operative with a mission so malevolent that once revealed, its diabolical nature will transcend even his ethnicity.
They will have to make it personal, showing every American – or as many as possible – how Obama and his cabal have conspired to harm each and every American and our heirs for generations to come.
Third, it doesn’t matter if Barack Obama is a brilliant constitutional lawyer, an Alinski strategist, the Manchurian executive or a law school washout. Something bigger than the electorate is keeping him in office.
The drama (read turmoil) surrounding Obama’s policy of lawlessness and his supporting actions are in many cases personal tragedies, but their function is to muddy the waters and obscure the new kingdom the elites are building.
The con: The Democratic Party, the civil rights establishment and the mainstream media convinced blacks not to look at Obama’s far-left associations, ideology or record, but rather to be enamored by the prospect of electing the “first African-American president.”
Purpose of the con: To use black voters to elect a far-left socialist Democrat who would carry out an agenda that was actually detrimental to blacks and this nation.
How it works: Promise blacks jobs, opportunities and health care while doing nothing meaningful to uplift them. The evidence:Blacks are worse off today than under any other administration in recent history. Black unemployment is almost 12 percent. (Black youth unemployment is almost 50 percent.) Under Obama, there have been more babies aborted than jobs created.
WorldNetDaily is publishing a book by Todd Akin, the former Missouri congressman who Senate bid imploded after he claimed that if a woman suffered a "legitimate rape," her body has ways to "shut that whole thing down." And how is WND promoting the book? By relitigating Akin's remarks and insisting they were accurate.
In a June 10 column, WND editor Joseph Farah insisted that "the anti-Akin hysteria was a completely manufactured smear":
It was the phrase “legitimate rape” that captured the attention of his opponents and the media. Why? I suppose some would like to pretend that all rape allegations are legitimate. Of course, that kind of thinking can lead to some great injustices, as we saw in the Duke lacrosse team witch hunt. Of even more significance, given the Akin controversy had to do with his explanation of why aborting an innocent unborn baby is not an appropriate response to rape, Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in the famous Roe v. Wade case that resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down laws restricting abortion across the U.S., had claimed she was raped. Only later did she admit that was a completely contrived claim.
So there are rape claims that are not legitimate. That was Akin’s only point.
Curiously, Farah did not disclose in his column that he was publishing a book by Akin.
Was he in any way making light of rape, as his accusers claimed?
No, in fact, “legitimate rape” is a legal term of art in Missouri state law. Not every person who cries rape does so with cause. Therefore, the first issue is always the determination of whether rape actually occurred. If so, then you have a “legitimate rape.” Apparently, most Democrats discounted Juanita Broaddrick’s claim without any curiosity whatsoever.
Was he dead wrong about the impact of stress on infertility?
No, in fact there is a library of research on the subject, which, anyone who cares to Google the phrase “stress and fertility” can review firsthand. Scientific studies show that both the male and female are affected by stress during the sexual act, making pregnancy less likely during a traumatic experience like rape.
Curiously, Farah did link to any of that research, even though there is a "library of research" available.Again, Farah failed to disclose he's publishing a book by Akin, though he includes a link to it at the end of his column.
That supposed proof finally showed in an unbylined June 25 WND article promoting Akin's book:
While two new fertility studies showing stress in males and females inhibits pregnancy have received worldwide attention, no one has linked them with the biggest U.S. political controversy of 2012 – Rep. Todd Akin’s suggestion that pregnancy as a result of rape is relatively infrequent.
That’s about to change as the unsuccessful Missouri Republican Senate candidate hits the media circuit in July for the first time since the 2012 election with the release of a new book, “Firing Back: Taking on the Party Bosses and Media Elite to Protect Our Faith and Freedom.”
Akin’s statement was criticized on two premises:
The use of the term “legitimate rape,” with some suggesting Akin was attempting to delegitimize the crime of rape;
His suggestion that it is unusual for rape victims to become pregnant.
Akin takes on the first point in “Firing Back”: “When a woman claims to have been raped, the police determine if the evidence supports the legal definition of ‘rape.’ Is it a legitimate claim of rape or an excuse to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? Are the police warranted to take action against a crime or not? In short, the word ‘legitimate’ modifies the claim and not the action. There have been women who have lied about being raped, as Norma McCorvey did before the U.S. Supreme Court. The infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 was based on a lie.”
On the second point, Akin writes: “My comment about a woman’s body shutting the pregnancy down was directed to the impact of stress on fertilization. This is something fertility doctors debate and discuss. Doubt me? Google ‘stress and fertilization,’ and you will find a library of research on the subject. The research is not conclusive, but there is considerable evidence that stress makes conception more difficult. And what could be more stressful than a rape?”
So Farah's "library of research" line is an unacknowledged direct quote of Akin. Some people would call that plagiarism.
First, as Slate's Amanda Marcotte points out, false rape reports are rare, and women falsely accusing men they consented to have sex with after the fact is especially rare.
Second, the studies the anonymous WND writer cites in support of Akin's idea that stress decreases fertility focuses on long-term stress factors, not a single traumatic event like a rape. In fact-checking Akin's claim, PolitiFact reported:
The Chicago Tribune, citing a Mayo Clinic publication about infertility, reported in August that mental stress can temporarily alter an area of the brain that controls the hormones that regulate a woman’s menstrual cycle. The Tribune article reported that it is a chronic kind of situation that occurs over months or years, not the acute trauma of a rape.
WND is promoting Akin's book by trying to claim he was right about something no legitimate medical authority has proven. Perhaps WND needs to rethink its marketing strategy.
Am I the only American sports fan that’s proud to admit I don’t know any of the rankings or current standings in the World Cup? Living in Orlando, Florida, I’m no stranger to cultural diversity, but I’m convinced that most American men only watch the sport to medicate their NFL and NBA withdrawals. I’m also convinced that there’s no better way to advance a globalist mentality than to use unsuspecting fans cheering for world integration.
I couldn’t care less about the FIFA World Cup, and soccer in general for that matter. I love watching traditional American sports like baseball, football and basketball because they take me back to a time and place as a kid growing up in Los Angeles when I got to cheer for greats like Fernando Valenzuela and Orel Hershiser of the Dodgers, Eric Dickerson and Kevin Greene of the then L.A. Rams, and Magic and Kareem of the Lakers. More importantly, despite growing up in a neighborhood that was predominantly black and Mexican, no one was ashamed to be American. In fact, we were downright proud.
Do you think the young Christian girls kidnapped by the Boko Haram Muslim terrorist in Nigeria would rather see their attackers being read their Miranda Rights in America as they await trial, or do you believe they want to read the tweets from our first lady as their innocence is taken from them? When the world sets out on a Google search for freedom of thought and religion, opportunity and a better way of life one place comes to mind … America!
In the words of our president, “let me be clear”: Liberals are determined to bring America down to size. Whether it’s Sen. Harry Reid and Eric Holder bullying sports teams like the Washington Redskins (I’ll be sure to wash my mouth out with soap) that connect us to traditional Americanism, or local mayors and media promoting the FIFA World Cup – can you imagine a better strategy to have Americans adopt the globalization of America than through sports?
You knew that the president would never let “a good crisis go to waste.” Now you know the same goes for sports.
CNS Falsely Links Border Crisis to DREAM Act Topic: CNSNews.com
A June 26 CNSNews.com article by Brittany M. Hughes, detailing her visit to an overcrowded detention facility in Texas for the influx of Central American refugees currently crossing the border, carries the misleading headline "The ‘DREAM Act’ I Saw."
But the surge in refugees has nothing whatsoever to do with the DREAM Act, which was never implemented. A separate CNS article appears to concede this, approvingly quoting a bishop pointing out that the influx is primarily caused by "the rise of violence against children, fomented by organized criminal networks, including drug cartels. They act with impunity, threatening families and coercing children and youth to join their membership or face violence or even death."
Further, even if the DREAM Act -- which would provide a path to citizenship for certain children of illegal immigrants -- had been implemented, it wouldn't apply to the current influx of refugees. The act would apply only to those who were in the U.S. before June 2007.
NEW ARTICLE: WorldNetDaily's Literary Hype Man Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND columnist Jim Fletcher has never read a WND-published book he didn't absolutely love. But he won't tell his readers those books are from the same folks that publish his column. Read more >>
AIM's Kincaid Just Can't Stop Lying About Panetta Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid devotes a June 26 Accuracy in Media column to decrying the fact that former secretary of defense Leon Panetta is receiving an award named after Ronald Reagan.
In addition to his anti-defense record, Panetta had a relationship with Communist Party figure Hugh DeLacy, who had ties to Soviet and Chinese intelligence operatives. It was never clear if Senate investigators or the FBI, or both, investigated Panetta’s background.
DeLacy was one of only two congressmen exposed as a member of the Moscow-funded Communist Party.
Kincaid's attack is completely false. As we previouslynoted, Media Matters has documented how the correspondence between Panetta and DeLay occurred when Panetta was a congressman, and the "relationship" was nothing more than that of a congressman and a constituent.
That shoots a major hole in Kincaid's attempt to smear Panetta as a secret commie -- but Kincaid doesn't want to admit the truth.
Garth Kant writes in a June 22 WorldNetDaily article:
The congressman gave the distinct impression he didn’t believe President Obama wasn’t telling him, or the American people, the truth.
Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND Obama probably did pay a ransom to terrorists for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, contrary to what the president has said.
The congressman based that claim on an exchange of letters with the administration, including a reply from the White House that was so carefully worded, Stockman said, it appeared to confirm his suspicions.
And, the congressman told WND, he wouldn’t be surprised if the administration paid millions of dollars to a terrorist group to free Bergdahl.
In fact, the Obama administration has consistently denied that it paid a ransom for Bergdahl, something Kantfails to acknowledge.
Of course, Kant is merely carrying water for his BFF Stockman, for whom Kant serves as his de facto communications director despite being a so-called reporter. By contrast, Kant has refused to report on Stockman's latest extralegal antics, in which the Office of Congressional Ethics announced that it had urged the House Ethics Committee to look into the circumstances surrounding Stockman's acceptance of campaign contributions from two of his congressional staffers. PR people don't do news, you see.
While Farah apologizes for his "dumb mistake," he plays the blame game anyway, because it's apparently the fault of liberals that he has to carry a gun in the first place:
I am licensed to carry a loaded firearm in multiple states and carry a concealed weapon virtually all of the time. I get death threats against me. Let me tell you about that.
Aug. 15, 2012, a gunman attempting to enter Family Research Council’s Washington, D.C., headquarters shot a security guard, 46-year-old Leonardo Johnson, in the left arm. While injured, Johnson assisted others who wrestled the gunman to the ground until police arrived and placed the gunman under arrest.
During his FBI interview, the gunman, Floyd Corkins was asked how he chose his target. His response was “Southern Poverty Law, lists … uh … anti-gay groups. I found them online.” Corkins appeared in court the following day and was charged with assault with intent to kill while armed and interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition. An affidavit filed in the case stated that Corkins had told the guard “words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics.’”
When Corkins was arrested, investigators found 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack. He told the FBI he planned to kill as many people as he could at FRC and then smash the sandwiches in their faces. The head of Chick-fil-A had announced opposition to same-sex marriage.
A week later, Corkins was indicted on three charges: two charges in the District of Columbia, possession of a handgun during a violent crime and assault with intent to kill, and interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition, a federal charge. In January 2013, Corkins pleaded guilty to crossing state lines with guns and ammunition, intent to kill while armed and committing an act of terrorism with the intent to kill. Corkins was sentenced to 25 years in prison on Sept. 19, 2013.
No mention, of course, of the unhinged right-wingers who shoot at law enforcement, an attitude Farah's WND encourages by fearmongering about the "militarization of police."
Farah also begrudgingly gives a little credit to the TSA agents who stopped him: "The TSA agents were very nice. They expressed concern about my making the flight. They called the Virginia police as is protocol. They took photos of the firearm and me. They gave me a summons. Then they sent me on my way."
That's a change from WND's standard hatred of the TSA. In announcing "e-mail hotline address for the reporting of first-hand abuse complaints at the hands of airport security personnel," Farah declared, “I personally canceled family travel plans this week as a result of widespread reports of groping, voyeurism and humiliation techniques. The American people will not be treated like cattle."
This being Farah, he can't stop himself from peddling at least one lie:
You might note who broke the story that Joseph Farah was detained at Dulles Airport Sunday for carrying a handgun – the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You might also note the Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly labeled my news organization a hate group – with even worse descriptions of me personally.
Actually, as the SPLC itself points out, the Washington Post first reported the airport incident (with a picture of Farah's piece); the SPLC simply connected the dots to confirm Farah's identity as the culprit. And the SPLC does not call WND a "hate group" -- its 2012 profile of WND contains no such description, though it notes that WND promotes hate groups.
(UPDATE: WND has also accused the TSA of "gate rape" by using now discontinued "nude-image scanners.")
Farah claimed he wrote this column because "I thought you deserved to know the rest of the story, as my inspiration Paul Harvey would say." But Farah identifies no factual error in the reporting of the SPLC or anyone else about the incident (even though the Post did, in fact, get Farah's age wrong). Farah's justification for carrying a gun is irrelevant to the incident, and it's hypocritical given his silence about right-wing extremists who target the police and his own expressed hatred of the TSA.
MRC Upset Anti-Gay Protesters Identified As Anti-Gay Topic: Media Research Center
The headline on Katie Yoder's June 20 NewsBusters post reads "Surprise! Liberal Media Bash ‘March for Marriage’." Apparently, Yoder considers accurately identifying the marchers as opposing gay marriage to be "bashing":
Of course, the liberal media had a field day covering the march, painting it as anti-gay. The Washington Post’s headline read “Thousands Rally at U.S. Capitol Against Gay Marriage” (not, you know, “Thousands rally to support traditional marriage.”) RawStory also noted the “Opponents of same-sex marriage” along with San Francisco Chronicle’s SFGate describing “thousands against gay marriage.”
But Yoder doesn't explain why supporting "traditional marriage" does not equal opposing gay marriage.
The MRC has a bit of a complex about the media accurately labeling things.
WND's Farah Caught With Loaded Gun At Airport Topic: WorldNetDaily
As if running a "news" website that has forfeited all credibility wasn't enough, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is in legal trouble.
The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that Farah was caught by TSA agents with a loaded .38-caliber revolver in his carry-on bag as he passed through security at Dulles International Airport. Farah faces a class 1 misdemeanor charge for carrying a gun in an airport terminal. The SPLC confirmed reporting by the Washington Post, which has a picture of Farah's revolver.
As of this writing, WND is silent about Farah's arrest, but it has published video of Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett being arrested. Will WND grace us with the video of Farah's arrest?
WND Thinks Homosexuality Is Just A 'Trendy Notion' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh writes in a June 21 WorldNetDaily article:
Peter and Hazelmary Bull run a bed and breakfast in the United Kingdom and were sued by two homosexuals when the Christian couple refused to rent them a bedroom in their business, which also is their home.
The fight brought on by the homosexuals went all the way to the nation’s highest court, resulting in an order that the Christian couple pay the “gay” duo a couple thousand dollars in damages.
All based on the idea of “nondiscrimination” laws where homosexuals are protected, but Christians are not. That Christians’ beliefs and practices must cede to the trendy notion of homosexuality.
That's right -- Unruh and WND think homosexuality is nothing but a "trendy notion."
WND's Klayman Lies About Obama and the Redskins Topic: WorldNetDaily
Larry Klayman rants in his June 20 WorldNetDaily column:
In this age of so-called political correctness comes yet a new outrage. This week the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, succumbing to pressure from the likes of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, invalidated the Washington Redskins’ trademark on the grounds that it is offensive to Native Americans. The absurdity of all of this is self-evident.
Where does the madness stop? For years Indian activists have been trying to get the Cleveland Indians to cease using a bucktoothed red-faced logo, “Chief Wahoo,” on their hats and uniforms. Should we white people complain when trademarks and logos depict someone who is a pale face? Should black people complain similarly because the Cleveland NFL football franchise has been for decades named the Browns? And, should Peter Sellers’ “Pink Panther” movies be banned because in them Inspector Clouseau refers to his Asian sidekick Cato as “my little yellow friend.” The hard fact is that American Indians do have a rosy complexion, and in fact it is quite appealing aesthetically.
And now our “Mullah in Chief” has once again decided to chime in. Last Saturday, Obama, instead of handling the impending crisis in Iraq, decided to handle what is clearly a more important matter by opening his big mouth and stating, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team – even if it had a storied history – that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.” Obama surely knows best about offending a sizable group of people. Maybe he should change his middle name, Hussein, since it dredges up memories of Saddam Hussein, among other thoughts.
But Obama -- whom Klayman libels yet again with the "Mullah in Chief" smear -- did not say those words "last Saturday," which would have been June 14. There was no compelling reason to, since the decision on the Redskins trademark wasn't issued until June 18. Obama actually said those words last October, when he was asked about it in an interview and Iraq had not yet returned to the headlines.
We'd express amazement that Klayman could have botched such a simple fact, but we know what a crappy lawyer he is.
(P.S. We made a screenshot of Klayman's error, and we will post it if Klayman and WND alter the column without acknowledging the error.)
Bozell & Graham: Redskins Losing Trademark Is Obama's Fault, Somehow Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham use their June 20 column to rant about the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office withdrawing trademark protection for the Washington Redskins, naturally blaming "the left, which has removed every moral objection to traditional understandings of profanity, continues its own crusade to ban words that violate their sensitivities on race, gender and sexual preference."
Yet it's President Obama's fault somehow, too. Bozell andGraham write that "A quick review of the PTO's record shows this was an overtly political decision — surely aimed at or requested by the White House." But they offer no evidence that the Obama White House was ever involved in the process. Still they conclude:
But say the word "Redskins," and the left collectively faints. In the case of the "R-word," a majority of the community has never been offended. Even a majority of the Indians have never been offended. But the left's crusade, using Obama's PTO, continues.
By reflexively blaming Obama, Bozell and Graham ignore the fact that the dispute over the Redskins trademark has been going on for years. As Sports Illustrated points out, the PTO first cancelled the trademark in 1999, but the decision was overturned by a federal court on appeal in 2003. Both of these events occurred before Obama was elected U.S. senator, let alone president.
Perhaps if Bozell and Graham didn't engage in such absurdly reflexive Obama-bashing, the Media Research Center might be taken more seriously.
WND's Corsi Is Still Keeing the Birther Faith Topic: WorldNetDaily
Birther dead-ender Jerome Corsi writes in a June 21 WorldNetDaily article:
Arpaio also told Rusty Humphries of the Washington Times recently one of those “sensitive” projects was his continued investigation into Barack Obama’s allegedly forged birth certificate.
“If I was the governor, which I turned down a couple of weeks ago because I would have to resign, I’m not going to leave this office to somebody coming in when I have sensitive investigations going, including the president’s birth certificate,” Arpaio said. “I haven’t finished that yet.
“I don’t care where [Obama] was born. That has nothing to do with it,” he continued. “I’m concerned about a forged, fraudulent government document. From Day 1 I’ve been investigating that, now we have to find out who’s behind that. I’m getting close.”
You also won't hear from Corsi how the whole right-wing birther conspiracy he helped foment has been utterly discredited in many other ways, or that Arpaio's cold case posse may be dissolved because it has been operating without valid state corporate filings, or that a man who shot a California Highway Patrol officer and a Bureau of Land Management ranger is a birther.
The liberal St. Louis Post-Dispatch has bowed to the "Fire George Will" folks and discontinued his syndicated column after he wrote about liberal universities now being pressed to stem an alleged tide of campus sexual assault. They're switching to big-government conservative Michael Gerson, the former chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush.
Gotta love all the unsupported assertions in that paragraph. How does Graham know the Post-Dispatch is liberal? Does the fact that it published Will and will publish Gerson suggest otherwise?
Graham's assertion that Will's column targeted "liberal universities" (how does Graham know those universities are liberal?) over "an alleged tide of campus sexual assault" glosses over the offending claim Will made: that being a sexual assault victim is somehow a "coveted status."
Finally, Graham whines that Gerson is a "big-government conservative" with, yes, no supporting evidence nor an explanation of how Gerson's purported view is any different from Will's.
Conservative media criticism, ladies and gentlemen.