WND Won't Guarantee Anti-Boehner Letters Will Arrive Before Vote
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily keeps tooting its own horn about its paid anti-Boehner propaganda effort in a Jan. 5 article:

The campaign that allows voters to tell their representatives in the U.S. House they should find another speaker for the coming session of Congress, and “Dump Boehner,” already has generated 560,000 letters – or a stack that will be nearly 19 stories tall on delivery.

The vote for a new House speaker is expected as early as Tuesday, and while not all of the messages will arrive by that time, the feeling across America will be more than clear, according to the organizer of the campaign.

“Republican House members should know that, as of today, 560,000 letters have been generated in the ‘Don’t Be Yellow: Dump Boehner Now!’ campaign,” said Joseph Farah.

“Unfortunately, they won’t all arrive before Tuesday’s vote. However, if Boehner wins the speakership, the campaign will continue, since the House can hold a no-confidence vote on the speaker at any time while in session. So Boehner won’t be out of the woods if he survives Tuesday’s challenge.”

As we've detailed, the numbers WND is forwarding obscure the important -- and less impressive -- numbers actually involved. All that has happened is that WND has convinced 2,267 of its readers (560,000 divided by the 247 GOP House members who will get spammed with WND's letters) to part with $29.95 of their hard-earned money. That's not only an insignificant fraction of Americans, it's a tiny fraction of the readership WND claims.

More importantly, WND has grossed more than $67,000 from this venture, only a small fraction of which will be spent delivering those letters to the House members. The letters account for less than five reams of paper; given that the letters will be delivered in bulk, not separately, it's a much less impressive impact. All that has actually happened is a bump in WND's revenue.

On top of that, WND can't guarantee they all will arrive before the speaker vote? You'd think WND readers would be getting better service for the $29.95 they're spending.

CNS Columnist Omits Details on Catholic IVF Lawsuit
Topic: CNSNews.com

The Heritage Foundation's Andrew Kloster takes the Catholic Church's side in a Dec. 30 CNSNews.com column detailing a lawsuit by a Catholic school teacher fired after undergoing in vitro fertilization treatments. But Kloster omits inconvenient facts to make his case. He writes:

Last Friday, a federal jury awarded a former teacher in the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend almost $2 million for what she claims was sex discrimination, the bulk of which was not for medical bills or lost wages, but for $1.75 million in “emotional and physical damages” she allegedly suffered.

And while the case looks narrow—was this female teacher fired when immoral male teachers were allowed to retain their jobs?—it involves a much bigger question: when can federal courts scrutinize the religious decisions of churches?

In 2008, Emily Herx, a junior high school language arts teacher at St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne, began IVF treatment. She notified her school principal about additional IVF treatment in 2010, and in April 2011 the church pastor met with Herx to inform her that IVF was morally wrong.

IVF is a multi-step procedure that usually involves stimulating a woman’s ovaries to cause multiple ovulation, collecting the eggs and fertilizing them with donor sperm in a petri dish (in vitro meaning “in glass”), developing embryos, selecting a few and implanting them back in the woman. Leftover embryos are usually frozen or destroyed. According to Catholic moral teaching, this process is objectionable in many different ways.

Kloster omits Herx's side of the story, in which she claims she endeavored to keep her IVF treatments from running afoul of church teaching, and that she had at least implicit approval from church officials before beginning the treatments. According to Slate:

According to her suit, Herx was told by Bishop Kevin Rhodes that IVF was “an intrinsic evil, which means no circumstances can justify it,” because it frequently involves the destruction of embryos. This is typically true—but not in Herx’s case. Herx has stated that she and her husband used every embryo they created and that she informed church officials of this from the beginning. Here the church’s tendency toward a black-or-white position runs afoul of complex reality. From what Herx has said, the clerical response to her fertility treatments seems to have been blanket condemnation. Herx’s claim states that the priest she consulted “relied on uninformed assumptions about fertility treatment in general” and that he “did not understand the medical treatments actually administered.” The clergy involved in Herx’s firing seemed to have been responding more to the very idea of infertility treatment than they were to the medical processes involved.

They also seem to have been responding to a concern for their own reputations. According to Herx’s complaint, her employers had no objection to her fertility treatments before they began to be more widely known. The priest who called Herx a “grave, immoral sinner” evidently also suggested, according to Herx, that she should have kept quiet so as to avoid bringing scandal on the school and the church, saying that some things are “better left between the individual and God.” And that was before she filed the lawsuit or went to the press.

The lawsuit also notes that Herx's teaching contract was renewed after she informed school officials about the IVF ttreatments, which raises questions about the fidelity of school officials to Caytholic teaching.

Kloster then echoes the church's stand that it didn't object to Herx's IVF treatments no objection to her fertility treatments "before they began to be more widely known," asking, "Why did Emily Herx seek to make her IVF treatments public? Each of these cases involves someone putting themselves in a bad situation, and then using the law as a club—each of these cases could have been avoided by exercising common sense." Kloster huffed, "Why should someone seek employment at a place where they know they cannot live up to their contract or where they oppose their employer’s moral vision?"

Kloster also echoed the Catholic diocese's claim that the court "erred in applying Title VII to the Diocese at all. It might be that the First Amendment protects the Diocese in its hiring and firing decisions for Catholic school teachers." Kloster doesn't mention that the church attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed because it claimed it was exempt under Title VII. A U.S. appeals court rejected that argument, stating that "The Diocese cites no authority for the proposition that the exemptions provide an immunity from the burdens of trial rather than an ordinary defense to liability. To our knowledge, there is none."

Kloster sneered at the idea that Herx's “emotional and physical damages” were worth $1.75 million, calling it "an absurd result." But apparently her case was compelling enough that a jury agreed with it, so Kloster seems to be a little off base.

WND's Klein Speculates About Obama's Use Of A Random Word
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein loves playing the game of plucking a random word or phrase from something President Obama or his wife said and playing armchair psychologist to extrapolate it into a secret reference to a radical agenda. For instance, he insists that Obama is referencing Saul Alinsky by referencing the common construct of "the world as it is" and "the world as it should be."

Klein plays this game again in a Dec. 30 WND article:

President Obama seems to be taking his cues from the academic left in claiming there is a “nativist trend” among some in the Republican Party who oppose any kind of amnesty for illegal aliens.

In an interview with NPR, Obama stated, “If your view is that immigrants are either fundamentally bad to the country or that we actually have the option of deporting 11 million immigrants, regardless of the disruptions, regardless of the cost, and that that is who we are as Americans, I reject that.”

Obama discussed the potential to work with the Republicans on the issue while warning about “nativists” who seek to block “immigration reform.”

[...]

Nativism typically is defined as the political position of vehemently opposing immigration of all kinds and demanding a favored status for the established inhabitants of a country.

The U.S. academic left, particularly professors at California state universities, have been leading the charge in applying the “nativist” term to opponents of illegal immigration, essentially branding them as racist and bigoted.

At no point does Klein claim that "nativist" is in any way inaccurate -- after all, there are numerous anti-immigration activists who are "vehemently opposing immigration of all kinds and demanding a favored status for the established inhabitants of a country." And Klein supports such leanings through his expressed sympathies for the teachings of right-wing terrorist Meir Kahane, whose Kach/Kahane Chai movement supports the arguably "nativist" view of expelling all Arabs from Israel.

Klein's presenting of politically biased speculation as "news" is yet another reason nobody believes WND.

CNS' Hollingsworth Pushes Questionable Talking Points on Financial Crisis
Topic: CNSNews.com

It's time for more uncritical stenography courtesy of CNSNews.com's Barbara Hollingsworth, as demonstrated in a Dec. 30 CNS article:

Another housing bubble is “very likely if we don’t change our policies,” warns Peter Wallison, a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which investigated the "avoidable" 2008 financial meltdown.

“It’s going to happen again because we’ll have the same kind of housing market again,” explained Wallison, who is currently co-director of financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Just six years after the overheated housing market bubble burst, triggering the Great Recession, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are still under government conservatorship, have been told to accept 3 percent down mortgages and to turn over a percentage of every loan they process to a government trust fund for affordable housing.

Hollingsworth is so lazy that she's literally transcribing her interview, as this sentence structure demonstrates:

Didn't you write that Fannie and Freddie’s lowering of underwriting standards to help people buy houses they couldn’t afford was “the root cause” of the financial crisis? CNSNews.com asked Wallison.

[...]

How can Fannie and Freddie, which were established to stabilize the nation’s housing market, justify doing the same things that triggered a market collapse just six years ago? CNSNews.com asked him.

Since Hollingsworth is a stenographer instead of a reporter, she can't be bothered to seek out any view that contradicts that of Wallison. For instance, the fact that Wallison's assertion that Fannie and Freddie was the "root cause" of the financial crisis has been utterly discredited by actual experts. McClatchy reported:

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Hollingsworth didn't mention the conclusion of the FCIC report that Wallison took part in found that delinquency rates for mortgages guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie "were substantially lower than loans securitized by other financial firms."

Further, Walliston and Hollingsworth's idea that Fannie and Freddie permitting 3 percent mortgages will somehow cause a new financial crisis (or played any significant role in the old one) are incredibly overblown. If Hollingsworth would have actually read the Bloomberg article she linked in her own article, she would have noticed this:

Laurie Goodman, director of the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute in Washington, said Watt’s move is an important first step in expanding credit. A study of Fannie Mae data by Goodman and other researchers found that credit scores had more bearing than the size of the down payment on whether borrowers defaulted.

The study concluded that allowing loans with down payments between 3 percent and 5 percent is likely to have a “negligible” effect on mortgage risk. These loans made up only about 1 percent of Fannie Mae originations when they were previously allowed.

[...]

Most lenders will welcome the loans as well, said Dave Stevens, CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association in Washington.

“These loans will be underwritten more conservatively and will likely come with higher mortgage insurance costs,” Stevens said. “History has shown that these loans, when properly underwritten, perform well.”

But that's what you get when you let a stenographer do reporting: politically biased stenography.

WND Is Still Censoring Birther Debunkings
Topic: WorldNetDaily

As usual, WorldNetDaily's year-end list of "underreported stories" reflects WND's own far-right obsessions instead of reality. Thus, you won't find anywhere on that list a certain story WND destroyed its credibility covering: birthers.

Specifically, how the birthers have been repeatedly discredited. As we've pointed out, the news that birther conspiracy theories have been debunked has been studiously ignored by WND, even though it promoted many of those discredited claims.

In the past year, former Cold Case Posse member Brian Reilly has dished on the dysfunction of the panel run by Mike Zullo and WND's own Jerome Corsi, and how Zullo has dismissed Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth to further the birther conspiracy.

You'd think that WND would be eager to report on this, but apparently, if it doesn't come from Corsi (whom Reilly revealed has had a falling-out with Zullo), it didn't happen. Reilly's report was met with utter silence from WND -- not even a defense of the posse by Corsi.

It seems that if WND has decided to underreport a story, it won't appear on WND's list of underreported stories. Funny, that.

MRC Takes Another Cheap Shot At Sandra Fluke
Topic: Media Research Center

You might recall that the Media Research Center was one of the most vociferous defenders of Rush Limbaugh following his three-day misogynistic tirade against Sandra Fluke, with MRC chief Brent Bozell refusing to offer any meaningful criticism and launching an "I Stand With Rush" website and his MRC underlings enthusiastically endorsing Rush's misogyny.

Fluke's loss in her race to be elected to a California state senate seat gave the MRC an opportunity to another cheap shot at Fluke. In their Dec. 27 column, Bozell and Tim Graham sneer: "Even that paragon of permissiveness Sandra Fluke couldn’t exploit her Limbaugh-victim aura to win a state Senate seat in libertine California."

How does advocating for birth control make one a "paragon of permissiveness"? Bozell and Graham don't explain, perhaps because the exact opposite is true: Fluke is demonstrating her responsibility.

Apparently Bozell and Graham think every woman who takes birth control is a slut or a prostitute, just like Limbaugh said.

WND's Farah Prays For Others (But Not Himself) To Repent
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Joseph Farah discusses New Year's resolutions in his Dec. 31 WorldNetDaily column:

Politics takes place largely in the natural world, and that’s where we live. But we need to recognize there’s a world beyond the natural.

That’s why I resolve in 2015 to devote more time and passion to personal prayer. The older I get, the more convinced I become that prayer is the most effective and important thing we can do with our time – for both the natural world and the spiritual realm.

God wants to have that relationship with his children. And we need to have it with Him.

Here’s what I will be praying for in 2015:

That believers in the United States repent for what they have allowed our country to become. America has been one of the strongest, freest and most prosperous nations in the world for a long time. It has also been one of the strongholds of Christianity. But all that is changing. And it’s the fault of Christians. Believers need to be on our knees more in 2015 repenting not just for the sins of the nation, but our personal sins. Our model should be 2 Chronicles 7:14: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Farah himself apparently feels no need to repent, even though he's in desperate need of doing so. Not only is he an inveterate liar, his website peddles hate and fear and misinformation on a daily basis.

Farah likes to set himself up as an avatar of all that is right and Christian, yet he won't subject himself to the standards he demands from others. His hypocritical "National Day of Prayer and Fasting" showed this, as he laughably insisted his motivation wasn't political even as his bill of particulars for the day read like an anti-Obama rant.

Farah demands others repent for their "personal sins," but it seems he doesn't believe he needs to do the same for his personal sins. He's apparently not enough of a Christian to know that God frowns upon such arrogance.

CNS Blogger Joins MRC's Heathering of WaPo Columnist
Topic: CNSNews.com

A couple weeks ago, the Media Research Center's Tim Graham unleashed a fit of Heathering on conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin for the offense of being less than hard-core conservative by criticizing Ted Cruz. Now Jen Kuznicki, a blogger at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com joins the Heathering fun:

It's amazing to look at the amount of column space that is used up by a blogger for the Washington Post's so-called "Right Turn" blog that tries to demoralize and belittle conservative politicians.  Lately, Jennifer Rubin, a self-described conservative who is very new to conservatism, has been attacking Cruz, but she's been just as vitriolic toward many conservative members of the House and Senate who simply disagree with her inexperienced and disjointed view of conservatism.

And so, as I read her columns, she comes off as an unhinged attack dog, who, rather than listening to conservatives who have, might I be blunt, many more Americans agreeing with them than with her, would rather try to use her space at the Washington Post to seek an outcome to election cycles rather than having a sane conversation on what is right for the country.

For the majority of Americans, the Washington Post blogger does not exist.  Most people, I think we can all agree, don't really get into the kind of politics that is necessary for those who make a living commenting on it.  So, either it is Jennifer Rubin's own view that the majority of people would not agree with, the people she vehemently opposes in her columns, or she's in that nasty DC bubble the rest of the nation ignores.

Kuznicki offers no evidence to back up her claim that Ted Cruz's brand of conservative is more popular than Rubin's. It seems she's just making up things to justify her Heathering.

NEW ARTICLE: Joseph Farah's Year of Obama Derangement
Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's editor won't acknowlege Barack Obama is president, so it's no surprise he spent 2014 saying hateful things about Obama. Read more >>

Klayman Gets Softball Interview on Newsmax
Topic: Newsmax

Larry Klayman is a deranged Obama-hater and an incompetent lawyer. But Newsmax thinks his views

A Dec. 29 Newsmax article by Sean Piccoli dutifully transcribes an interview Klayman did on Newsmax TV. In the two entire segments he devotes to interviewing Klayman, guest host Ric Blackwell serves up softball questions and fails to ask any follow-up questions about Klayman's outrageous statements, such as calling President Obama an "emperor," or his laughable claim he's "neutral" on the issue of immigration. Blackwell ends the interview by fawningly calling Klayman a "leading voice on the right."

The promos attached to the video claim that Newsmax TV is devoted to "real news, better talk." Since when does turning over your network to a hateful nutjob like Klayman for 10 minutes and failing to challenge his extremist views equate "real news, better talk"?

WND Pushes Dubious Idea of Rampant 'Pro-Abortion' Violence
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Alex Newman's Dec. 25 WorldNetDaily article begins with an apparent falsehood:

It was Sept. 11, 2009, just outside a high school in the small Michigan town of Owosso when Jim Pouillon, 63, was murdered for doing what he thought was right: protesting against abortion, which he considered murder.

In fact, Pouillon's son states that his father was a domestic abuser who "really didn't care" and took part in anti-abortion protests to indulge in his "pathologic hatred of women." Pouillon's son continued:

Again, my dad didn't care about abortion. He wanted to hurt people, upset people. He enjoyed making people suffer.

His goal was to be shot on a sidewalk. His goal was to make someone so angry, to make them feel so terrorized, to make them feel the only way they could make him stop was to kill him.

His pro-life stance was the most perfect crime I personally know of. He hid behind the 1st Amendment and was allowed to stalk, terrorise, harass, be obsene, ect. These things are crimes. Offending people isn't a crime, and having different political views isn't a crime, but he committed several crimes over the last 20 years and got away with it.

But neer mind the facts: The goal of Newman's article is to promote the idea that violence against anti-abortion activists is "common and widespread." Newman cites only "a two-week review by WND" that's heavy on statistics by the rabidly anti-abortion group Human Life International, so the objectivity of its numbers are questionable. Indeed, Newman offers no evidence he double-checked HLI's numbers in his supposedly extensive "two-week review."

Newman also features quotes from Operation Rescue leader Troy Newman lamenting death threats against him by "the enemies of God — the radical homosexuals, the God-haters, the atheists, the abortionists." Not only doesn't Alex Newman mention that his employer published a book by Troy Newman, he ignores Operation Rescue's links to Scott Roeder, who murdered abortion doctor George Tiller.

As we've documented, Troy Newman and his Operation Rescue lieutenant Cheryl Sullenger -- who served time in prison for plotting to bomb an abortion clinic --  had numerous contacts with Roeder in the years before he murdered Tiller, and Roeder has stated that Troy Newman told him it “wouldnʼt upset” him if Tiller were murdered.

Of course, such shoddy, self-serving journalism is how WND operates. The surprising thing is that WND continues to find writers who are willing to violate the most basic rules of journalism.

CNS Portrays Gays As Diseased To Fight Lifting of Blood Donation Ban
Topic: CNSNews.com

CNSNews.com is so unhappy with a federal decision to move toward lifting a ban on gay men donating blood that it's pulling out all the stops to portray gays as filthy and diseased.

In a Dec. 30 article noting the decision, Penny Starr makes sure to tell us that "men who have sex with men (MSM) have much higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis compared to heterosexual men," and that "men having sex with men are at highest risk for getting HIV and represent the largest number of new infections, as well as the higher syphilis rates and higher rates of drug use."

Starr also repeats the testimony of Family Research Council official Peter Sprigg against lifting the ban, but she doesn't mention that the FRC is a rabidly anti-gay group whose testimony can't be trusted as objective.

How dedicated is Starr to portraying gays as disease-ridden parasites? Her article includes, for no apparent reason, a picture of an alleged "skin rash caused by syphilis":

Starr does not source the picture, so it's unclear what the picture is actually of.

Starr's homophobic smear is a part of CNS' overall denigration of LGBT issues as unworthy of being taken seriously by the federal government.

WND's Farah Can't Stop Telling Lies About Obama
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is unusually proud of the fact that his website publishes misinformation -- indeed, he essentially bragged about doing so, since he admitted doing it to a Salon reporter without apologizing or promising to do better.

In keeping with his tradition of peddling lies, Farah devoted his Dec. 26 column to telling more of them. After invoking the racially charged image of lazy black men by asking, "Imagine how bad off America would be if Barack Obama had a work ethic," Farah manufactures offense that Obama watches ESPN once in a while instead of obsessing about politics all day:

Think about that statement.

No. 1, we already know Obama takes more vacations than any 50 families in America combined, right? And those outlandishly expensive vacations are paid for by you and me.

No. 2, we know he plays more golf than most pros. Do you think he pays for his golf outings? Of course not.

Now we know he spends most of his mornings watching ESPN!

Farah is simply lying out of spite. While Obama had taken 125 full or partial days on vacation as of August, George W. Bush had taken 407 vacation days at the same point in his presidency. We don't recall Farah complaining about Bush taking "more vacations than any 50 families in America combined" -- even though the number would have to be increase to "any 200 families in America combined."

Farah's claim that Obama "plays more golf than most pros" is also a blatant lie. One hostile website claims that, as of this writing, Obama has played 208 rounds of golf. That equates to less than one round a week. By contrast, your typical golf pro plays four rounds a week during a tournament, plus several more rounds of practice time.

Further, Obama's total is only one-fourth the amount reportedly played by President Dwight Eisenhower.

It appears that Farah doesn't understand how he's destroying what little credibility his "news" organization has by telling easily discredited falsehoods.

CNS Ignored Benghazi-Debunking Report, But Jumped On Vacuous IRS Report
Topic: CNSNews.com

Last month, when a Republican-led House committee released a report that blew up numerous right-wing myths about Benghazi, CNSNews.com ignored it, reporting on its existence only when a Republican senator denounced it three days later.

But when a Republican-led House committee issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service's alleged targeting of conservative groups, CNS' Ali Meyer was Johnny-on-the-spot with a Dec. 23 article detailing it:

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif) released a new report Tuesday, which reveals numerous cases of how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was purposely targeting conservative groups, with one IRS agent calling a conservative group “icky.”

The report, titled “The Internal Revenue Service’s Targeting of Conservative Tax-Exempt Applicants: Report of Findings for the 113th Congress,” reviewed 1.3 million pages and 52 transcribed interviews to find many examples of conservative targeting.

Meyer quotes only from the report and can't be moved to solicit reaction to it. The fact that the most salacious detail she can apparently find in it is "one IRS agent calling a conservative group 'icky,'" however, explains the lack of bombshell material it contains.

Indeed, as Salon points out (but Meyer doesn't), the report doesn't link this so-called IRS scandal to the White House, despite Issa's repeatedly suggesting there was one.

Rabidly Anti-Gay Scott Lively Defends Bill Cosby From 'Lynch Mob Justice'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Scott Lively takes time out from hating gays to defend Bill Cosby against sexual assault allegations in his Dec. 25 WorldNetDaily column:

I’m not entirely certain that Bill Cosby is innocent. It could be that his accusers are telling the truth, but I’m giving Mr. Cosby the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty is still an important principle in our law and culture, notwithstanding the conclusions of CNN’s producers.

What tips the scale for me in Mr. Cosby’s favor is the timing of these accusations. It seems awfully suspicious that the bravest black man in America on the issue of irresponsible black youth and their adult enablers was suddenly re-ensnared in an old scandal just when President Obama and his Marxist fellow-travelers were ginning up a race war in Ferguson, Missouri, by inflaming racial hatred among irresponsible black youths and their adult enablers.

At least these leftist agitators are consistent: It’s “lynch mob justice” for anyone for whom an assumption of guilt serves the Marxist agenda, whether it’s a white police officer or an iconic black civil rights hero. (Remember, they did the same thing to Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain.)

[...]

Indeed, If I were Mr. Cosby’s adviser, I would encourage him to turn the tables on his attackers. Take their siege tower and turn it into a platform for his own message on authentic black empowerment, especially in the wake of the revenge-assassination of the two police officers in New York City.

Instead of hiding from the spotlight like the Marxists hope and expect, he could step right into the center of it and preach the plain color-blind truth about personal responsibility, setting an example of fortitude. I think if he did, he might be shocked at the number of fed-up Americans – both black and white – who would rally to his side.

To have a race war, you need to generate mindless hatred on both sides – hatred that dehumanizes the individuals on the “other side” and assigns blame based on skin color. The socialist left has been grooming inner-city blacks in anti-white racism for a long time, while the fascist left has been doing the same with suburban whites by lumping all blacks together with the “Knockout Game” gangsters and other punks. (Remember that National Socialists are NOT rightists – they are nationalistic leftists).

Of course, Lively knows all about "lynch mob justice," having whipped up anti-gay sentiment in Uganda, which tried to pass a law that would permit the death penalty for merely being homosexual. While Lively has insisted he didn't support that law, he did express support for legal punishment of homosexuality (never mind that homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda).

Lively has further engaged in his own "lynch mob justice" against gays by ranting about how "lavender Marxists" are "murderers" who "have fixed their malevolent gaze on Christian Uganda." 

Lively is lying when he claims" the fascist left" are the only ones who have been "lumping all blacks together with the 'Knockout Game' gangsters and other punks." As we've documented, WND -- where Lively's column appears -- has been fearmongering about "black mob violence," with Colin Flaherty falsely insisting that only blacks play the "knockout game" against mostly suburban whites.

Lively huffs that "The take-down of Bill Cosby is a tactic to manipulate whites into giving up on blacks." He might want to chat with WND about how their campaign to manipulate whites into giving up on blacks by fearmongering about "black mob violence" has been going.

Lively thus joins Jesse Lee Peterson as a defender of Cosby at WND. When your most prominent defenders include a rabidly anti-gay activist and a writer who is quick to blame the world's ills on "radical feminists," that would seem to undermine any moral high ground Cosby has left.