Thus, there is a vast segment of America that simply isn’t aware of this administration’s basis in Marxism and fundamentally anti-American worldview, under-the-radar executive and regulatory power grabs, material support of terrorists and criminal participation in the overthrow of governments. They also have no idea that Obama has provided unprecedented access to our government to Islamist militants for the express purpose of compromising our national security and placing the American people at grave risk.
Were this segment of our electorate – stupid though they may or may not be – suddenly made aware of these facts, we would be looking at an entirely different political landscape right now.
President Obama seems more interested in defending the religion of Islam than in defending the United States against the threat of Islamic jihad, but Islam isn’t under attack; we are.
Obama has created a straw man – or fattened one up that others created. The United States isn’t at war with Islam – or even radical Islamists, for that matter. By incessantly and wrongly suggesting we are hostile to Islam proper, Obama is giving credence to that charge and planting a seed in the minds of Muslims, thereby aggravating the problem he claims he wants to diminish.
What else did Imam Obama – who professes Christianity – proclaim in the name of the ISIS Islamic eschatology? Obama claimed that ISIS has “perverted the religion [of Islam]” and that it is peddling a “twisted ideology used to incite others to violence.”
Dear candidate for president of the United States:
Congratulations on your decision to pursue a career as leader of the free world. The following exam, while in no way comprehensive, is intended to assess your basic qualifications and level of occupational competency. Though a failing grade does not automatically exclude you from being elected by low-information voters, hipster millennials, liberal yuppies plagued by white guilt and lesbian feminists with sleeve tattoos, it does strongly indicate that you are better suited for a career in an industry requiring no experience whatsoever and few, if any, measurable skills.
Alternative career paths might include: 1. Community Organizer 2. Law professor at the University of Chicago 3. Serial bad golfer 4. Mom jeans model
While I can understand why some politicians won’t fall into the obvious trap of judging the hearts and minds of others – especially a president running roughshod over the Constitution, making dangerous and reckless foreign policy decisions, ruling domestically like a dictator and destroying the economy, I am only too happy to comment on Obama’s alleged Christian faith.
Obama refers to our nation as “this” country, as though it is some other country and not “our” country, as when he said, “There’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped disproportionately by the police, and that’s a fact.” Obama once told a European audience that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance.”
When Obama has expressed admiration for our country, it is often in a backhanded manner. “I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we, too, have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within its own borders. This is true,” Obama declared to the United Nations General Assembly last year.
By contrast, Mayor Giuliani said, “With all our flaws we’re the most exceptional country in the world. I’m looking for a presidential candidate who can express that, do that and carry it out.”
I’m familiar with what I call the political juvenile delinquency of Barack Obama. Part of my job in the Army was reading the Communist press. I see through all of Obama’s political juvenile delinquency. Been there. Done that. Got over it before Obama was born.
Don’t tell me I can’t question the patriotism of someone whose patriotism is as questionable as that of Barack Obama.
And I want his patriotism questioned like a select committee of the House of Representatives would. And not like a nudist crossing a barbed-wire fence!
The secret is that Obama and nearly all in his employ despise America and the entire model of Western society. This includes democratic republicanism, capitalism, as well as Judeo-Christian principles and values. A large measure of their antipathy is also due to the fact that they consider this paradigm an Anglo-European (white) paradigm.
Obama and his ilk are an amalgam of radicals in the ’60s mold, whether Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Structural Marxists, black and Latino nationalists, Marxist feminists, Nation of Islam, or Sunni Muslim Islamists. All of these groups are intensely hateful, and all embrace the short historical worldview that the Evil Old White Man (those of northern European descent) has been exploiting nonwhites for centuries, it is time for this to come to an end, and it is their mission – nay, their destiny – to bring this end about.
They view America as the white man’s “signature creation” – so of course America has to go.
The sentiments of a Barack Obama (or an Eric Holder, Van Jones, etc.), therefore, will always lie with the Islamists, who they perceive as having been exploited and oppressed by the Anglo-European capitalist colonialist Judeo-Christian leviathan. Their sentiments will always lie with the urban black street thug rather than their law-abiding white victim, because it is the white victim who is in part responsible for the black thug’s pain.
Enter Rudy Giuliani, supposedly speaking for America’s wounded feelings, letting us know that Obama doesn’t love America. Yet it says something deeply uncomplimentary about America’s leadership during this era of purposely induced decline that a well-known star in the GOP’s firmament has taken this long to get less than halfway to the truth about Obama.
I say halfway because, like the unfaithful spouse in the slapstick comedy, Obama has approached the task of bringing American down with studied ingenuity. Nothing that contributed to our success has escaped his destructive efforts. Refusing seriously to address the issue of his eligibility for office, he quietly sneered at the authority of the Constitution’s words. Seeking to confer voting privileges on the D.C. delegate in Congress, (which the Constitution explicitly withholds), he waved off another constitutional provision. Seeking to usurp Congress’ oversight of the decennial Census, he sought to poison the electoral root of its independent representation of the people.
When I heard that Rudy Giuliani was questioning Obama’s love for America, I wondered, “Why does he still refused to admit that it is hatred, not the absence of love, which drives Obama?” It drives the whole elitist faction Obama represents. Giuliani stops short of the truth. So should I be struck dumb by his bold courage, or intrigued enough to investigate his odd failure of perception?
Barack Hussein Obama was declared Person of the Year by Time in 2008 and 2012 (Time changed the title from Man of the Year to Person of the Year in 1999). Barack Hussein Obama has been the most destructive president in America. He is known as the most biblically hostile president. He has attempted to attack the foundations of America, tear down the Constitution and re-create it in his own image. He is a shameless supporter of the murder of children in the womb, even attempting to force private institutions to fund it, and has abused his power in an attempt to strip American citizens of their rights to keep and bear arms, which are to be protected under the Second Amendment.
CNS Notes High Beef Prices, Doesn't Bother To Explain Why Topic: CNSNews.com
A tagline at the end of CNSNews.com's economics articles states that they are "funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold." We have to wonder if Wold is spinning in his grave at the abysmal quality of so-called reporting his bequest to the Media Research Center is funding.
A Feb. 26 CNS article by Ali Meyer is an example of this. It's all about how "The average price of a pound of ground beef climbed to another record high -- $4.235 per pound -- in the United States in January." Even though Meyer slings a full complement of stats in her article, at no point does she explain why beef has become so expensive, implying that it's somehow the fault of President Obama.
In fact, as more responsible news outlets have reported, the high prices are the result of a years-long drought in Texas and the Midwest that shrank the U.S. cattle herd in 2014 to its smallest size since 1952.
Unless Wold's bequest specifically ordered Meyer and CNS to mislead about the economy to falsely smear the Oabma administration -- which may indeed be the case, given that many of CNS' misleading articles about monthly unemployment rates also contain the tagline crediting him -- we can't imagine that Wold's heirs are happy about how CNS is using his money.
WND's Peacock Is Still Obsessed With Blaming Obama For U.S. Spending In Kenya Topic: WorldNetDaily
Steve Peacock's peculiar obsession with suggesting that any U.S. aid to Kenya is personally directed by President Obama continues in a Feb. 21 WorldNetDaily article:
A new round of advisers is being sent to Kenya on behalf of the Obama administration, which plans to deploy individual private contractors to assist in the simultaneous expansion of health-care services and the ongoing decentralization of the national government.
Indeed, one of Obama’s long-term goals “is to establish a social health insurance system to enable equitable provision of health care to all Kenyan citizens,” one of the adviser-recruitment documents explicitly declares.
At no point does Peacock prove that Obama is personally behind any of this aid to Kenya, or even that the aid is an increase from that under previous administrations. Peacock is simply a WND tool to suggest that Obama wasn't born in America.
Peacock is a little sensitive about his biased, obsessed, cherry-picked reporting getting called out.
NewsBusters' Shepherd Shows Why He Was Named Top Blogger At CPAC Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters managing editor Ken Shepherd received an award for “Nonprofit Blogger of the Year” at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference. One apparent reason is that he dutifully promotes right-wing talking points.
A Feb. 25 NewsBusters post further demonstrates the technique that won Shepherd his award. In it, he complains about MSNBC host Chris Matthews' criticism that John Boehner's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress two weeks before an Israeli election was "purely partisan":
As I've documented previously here at NewsBusters, Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu -- which noted that the invitation was on "behalf of the bipartisan leadership" of both houses of Congress -- was initially for him to speak on February 11.
The president was notified by Boehner about the February 11 invite AFTER it was sent to Netanyahu but prior to Netanyahu's response, which turned down February 11 but offered March 3 as an alternate date, which Boehner readily agreed to.
Again, Mr. Boehner noted bipartisan consensus in extending the invite to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Either that is true and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have some explaining to do, or Boehner is lying or at best misrepresenting the bipartisan "OK" he got from his colleagues. Rather than presenting this as nefarious partisan conspiracy, Matthews would do better to attempt to get to the bottom of that question.
But we could find no evidence Boehner consulted any Democratic congressional leaders before inviting Netanyahu. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has stated she was not consulted. Politico reports that "Boehner’s office coordinated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S." The response from Boehner quoted by Politico did not contradict Pelosi's claim.
Politco also reports that Boehner didn't even invite Pelosi to Netanyahu's speech, though he invited other Democratic officials.
So it appears Matthews has done his research. So why is Shepherd still giving Boehner the benefit of the doubt? Instead of pussyfooting around it, Shepherd should simply state what is apparently obvious: that Boehner lied when he portrayed Netanyahu's speech invitation as bipartisan.
But then, that's not the kind of truth in blogging that earns you the "Nonprofit Blogger of the Year" designation at CPAC.
Serial Commandment Violator Farah Judges Obama's Christianity (Again) Topic: WorldNetDaily
As he is wont to do, Joseph Farah devotes yet another WorldNetDaily column to insisting that President Obama isn't a real Christian:
While I can understand why some politicians won’t fall into the obvious trap of judging the hearts and minds of others – especially a president running roughshod over the Constitution, making dangerous and reckless foreign policy decisions, ruling domestically like a dictator and destroying the economy, I am only too happy to comment on Obama’s alleged Christian faith.
here are good reasons for Christians to wonder about Obama’s claims to be a follower of Jesus – including his policies such as affirmation of same-sex marriage, abortion on demand for any reason or at any stage of development, including babies who survive outside the womb, the abject abandonment of persecuted Christians in the Middle East while offering “refugee” status to tens of thousands of Sunni Muslims, who are not experiencing religious persecution.
Some are fond of quoting Matthew 7, in which Jesus said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” But that’s not all Jesus said about judgment.
In the same chapter, He said believers would not be clueless in knowing who is a true believer and who is not: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Does Obama have such fruits of the faith to show?
I’m not judging, but I can’t see any. Can you?
Farah judging the sincerity of Obama's faith is the height of hypocrisy. Not only does Farah repeatedlyviolate the Eighth Commandment by bearing false witness against Obama and others, he facilitates others in doing so -- indeed, the whole of WND can be seen as one massive, ongoing Eighth Commandment violation.
Farah is on record as appearing to be unduly proud of the fact that WND publishes misinformation -- something reinforced by his refusal to publicly repent for his dishonesty even as he demanded others do so during the "national day of prayer and fasting" he invented.
What fruits of the Christian faith does Farah show? We can't see any because his record of lies make it impossible.
MRC Still Won't Call Out O'Reilly's Lies, Instead Attacks His Accusers Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center went nuclear on the exaggerations of NBC's Brian Williams, despite the fact that MRC chief Brent Bozell is guilty of much more serious falsehoods. But the MRC won't call out Fox News' Bill O'Reilly for making similar exaggerations, and as they continue to pile up, the MRC has now taken to sniping at O'Reilly's accusers.
Bozell has been utterly silent on O'Reilly -- after all, liars stick together. Thus, the role as chief sniper has fallen to Tim Graham, despite his role in helping Bozell hide the fact that he ghost-wrote Bozell's syndicated columns for years. (If Graham didn't speak out on the issue, he helped conceal it.)
Graham grumbled in a Feb. 24 NewsBusters post: "The left is trying to knock off O’Reilly after the Brian Williams scandal." As if the MRC's attack on Williams wasn't motivated much more by partisan hatred than concern for journalistic integrity.
The fact that Graham's post is mostly about an irrelevant side issue of whether a Washington Post blogger should have disclosed his wife's employment with Mother Jones, the magazine that first disclosed O'Reilly's exaggerations, shows that the MRC will be playing blame-the-messenger on O'Reilly in a way it didn't regarding Williams.
Indeed, Graham attacked another messenger in a Feb. 25 post, bashing GQ for daring to opine on O'Reilly:
No one looks to GQ for political analysis. It would be like looking to Rolling Stone for religion coverage. But they can still ape the rest of the liberal media and mock Fox News. As the Fox haters campaign to get Bill O’Reilly canned, GQ (not an abbreviation for Genius Quotient) has come up with a mocking list of “18 Things That Actually Would Get Bill O'Reilly Fired.”
Graham took it even farther promoting his post on Twitter, seemingly questioning the sexuality of anyone who questions O'Reilly by sneering that GQ is "Foppishly against Fox":
In a response to ConWebWatch, Graham denied he was questioning the sexuality of O'Reilly's critics: "'Foppish' doesn't mean gay, you doof."
Graham's not alone in aggressively ignoring the substance of the charges against O'Reilly. In a Feb. 25 NewsBusters post, Randy Hall similarly borrowed from the kill-the-messenger playbook: "Could this assault on the most popular person in cable news for 15 years be an attempt to balance the scales after the liberals recently lost former NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams? Only time -- and ratings -- will tell."
At no point does Hall acknowledge the factual basis behind the accusations against O'Reilly.
WND's Massie: It's My Constitutional Right To Lie About Obama! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Obama Derangement Syndrome victim Mychal Massie is shocked -- shocked! -- that anyone would dare think his attacks on Obama might go too far. He expresses his shock in his Feb. 23 WND column in response to a reader who criticized his calling Obama a "fairy" because it's a derogatory term:
Political correctness is the bludgeon cultural Marxists wield to demagogue the craven into obedience. It is the meme employed that ensures the acceptable form of social engineering. I reject “political correctness” in all of its constructs and have pledged to myself that I will never succumb to what amounts to a veiled unconstitutional attempt to enslave the nation on a plantation of forced group think, group speak and group behavior.
Such was the gist of a conversation I recently had with Susan Highfield. She suffered under the fallacious idea that certain speech was permissible only for her to use. She said: “Mychal, I hate the man [i.e., Obama] … but only a homosexual like myself can be calling him a … fairy. Otherwise it’s a derogatory statement against [homosexual] people. With all due respect, I’m pretty sure you understand.” She continued by saying, “calling him a fairy is basically hate speech.”
Apparently, Ms. Highfield neglected to note that it was me she was speaking to and failed to consider my rejection of such asinine reasoning. I explained to her that “I refuse to have speech privatized … nor do I subscribe to the myth that homosexuals are harmed” by individuals using proper grammar as it was intended because they do not like it.
She took exception to my calling Obama a “fairy.” She wanted me to believe that for me to use the word was somehow an act of hate speech and injurious to homosexuals when used by heterosexuals. The problem with her reasoning is that the proper definition of the word “fairy” further exposes her ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
The word “fairy” as I intended it is defined by the Urban Dictionary as “a male who acts slightly feminine but not necessarily means that they are gay.” Thus my response to Highfield, questioning whether she had seen the photos of Obama on a bicycle or throwing a baseball, which cemented my usage of “fairy” to describe him.
If the conflicted Cartesians trying to practice what the cultural Marxists are advocating were remotely honest, they would quickly understand that which they espouse by definition “fails to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, and almost always in a self-serving fashion.”
Highfield claimed she was “disappointed” because I wasn’t “focusing on the fact that Obama is an impostor by attempting to pass himself off as a heterosexual, with a wife and children when its been uncovered that he is indeed a homosexual.” This was the source of her anger over Obama – and as she also commented, she was upset because “what he’s done to this country is liable to take a couple of generations to fix.”
Yet her angst with me is that I called him a “fairy” – while her angst with him was that, according to the information she apparently has access to, he remains a closet homosexual using family as his “beard.”
I refuse to accept that my using the words such as “fairy, niggardly, heathen, pagan,” ad nauseum are injurious to homosexuals, blacks and Muslims. Nor will I be bullied into accepting a contrived lexicon that is inherently illiterate and dishonest and serves only to promote that which is antithetical to everything I believe.
At no point inhis column does Massie provide any evidence to back up his claim that Obama is a "fairy." So Massie is basically declaring his right to lie about people he doesn't agree with. But the last time we checked, malicious lies are prosecutable under libel and defamation laws.
MRC Deflects '50 Shades' By Bring Up 'Passion of the Christ' Topic: Media Research Center
While WorldNetDaily went into full freakout mode over the "50 Shades of Grey" film, the Media Research Center took a different appoach: unfavorably comparing it to the film "The Passion of the Christ."
A Feb. 16 CNSNews.com article by Brittany Hughes tried to spin hard against "50 Shades'" huge opening weekend:
During its opening weekend at the box office, ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ came close to being the top grossing R-rated movie with a February opening in history, raking in $81.67 million during its first weekend in theaters – Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Feb. 13-15 -- but it still fell short of the $83.85 million record set by ‘The Passion of the Christ’ in 2004.
According to a weekend box office report from Universal Pictures, ‘Fifty Shades” easily dominated movie theaters on Valentine’s Day weekend, but failed to top Mel Gibson’s hit depicting the death of Christ released more than a decade ago on Feb. 25, 2004, the Ash Wednesday of that year.
Hughes was apparently citing an estimate of "50 Shades'" weekend take; the link she provides as evidence currently shows that "50 Shades" took in $85.1 million that weekend, topping "Passion" for best February opening.
MRC officials Brent Bozell and Tim Graham spent their Feb. 21 column harrumphing that "50 Shades" "debuted to far less controversy than The Passion of the Christ in 2004." They continued:
Before and after The Passion's release, there was great derision about its supposed anti-Semitism. CBS called it an "ecumenical suicide bomb." The New York Daily News ridiculously claimed it was "the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II."
Actually, far from "ridiculous," there is a very solid case to be made for "Passion" containing anti-Semitism. As the National Catholic Reporter notes:
[Director Mel] Gibson made a film that confirmed many stereotypes of the Jews, such as depicting the moment when the bag of silver was tossed to Judas in slow motion and Judas looked at it lovingly; the "bad" Jewish men with fang-like teeth and the "good guys" with nice teeth; the sneering hatred from the high priest when he questions Jesus; and Pilate calling the Jews "filthy rabble." Certainly not the first to do so, Gibson uses stereotypes, some more subtle than others, to create a group of "bad" Jews to confront the "good" Jews consisting of Jesus, Mary and their followers who would be thought of as aligned with Christians today.
That Gibson was making a conscious choice to reject and negate Judaism is indisputable when we see the sign on the cross. "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" is written only in ecclesial Latin and Aramaic. He rejects the Greek as detailed in John 19:20, and Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire at that time. Thus, according to Adlerstein, Gibson creates "a tension between Aramaic/Hebrew; he does not create a bond but severs it."
Further, the fact that Gibson has since revealed himself to hold anti-Semitic sentiments would seem to bolster the case that "Passion" includes anti-Semitism.
Perhaps Bozell and Graham might want to find a better example to counter "50 Shades."
NEW ARTICLE -- Out There, Exhibit 62: WorldNetDaily Wants To Run Bruce Jenner's Life Topic: WorldNetDaily
Anti-gay WND columnists who despise the transgendered think they know better about Jenner than he himself does. Read more >>
The Washington Post's Erik Wemple interviews Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy about his $1 million donation to the Clinton Foundation that Fox News attacked him for. Ruddy points out something that Fox News didn't: another Clinton Foundation donor is James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch and chief of Fox News owner 21st Century Fox.
WND's Unruh Misrepresents More Facts, Remains Employed At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily news editor Bob Unruh's sorry record of dishonest reporting continues in a Feb. 21 article in which he once again serves as stenographer for right-wing legal groups trying to eliminate yoga classes from a California school district.
Unruh uncritically repeats what these right-wingh legal groups -- the Pacific Justice Institute and the National Center for Law & Policy -- claim a lower court said about the classes:
At the district court level, the judge ruled that yoga is “religious” and that the school’s practices are “identical” to the faith-based practices in yoga. For example, part of what students do is to take various “praying hands” positions and bow down “to the Hindu solar god Surya,” but the lower court ruled the district could do it anyway.
But that description dishonestly leaves out one important aspect of the judge's ruling: It did not find that the school district's implementation of yoga was religious.
A local newspaper reported at the time of the July 2013 ruling:
A San Diego Superior Court judge ruled Monday that the Encinitas Union School District can continue a yoga program for students because it is not religious, as some parents have contended.
While Judge John Meyer acknowledged that yoga can be religious, he also said "EUSD Yoga" passed muster because it appears secular and thus does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
Meyer said he focused on testimony from people with firsthand knowledge about yoga in the classroom.
The judge also disregarded much of the testimony of religious expert Candy Brown, who described Ashtanga as the most religious form of yoga. Brown also said yoga leads practitioners to gain interest in Hinduism or other religions.
"There's a point where you have to separate theory and shadow from reality," Meyer said in reference to Browns' remarks.
The judge said he based his decision in part on the 1971 ruling Lemon vs. Kurtzman, which prohibits school districts from reimbursing Catholic school instructors who teach secular subjects.
The ruling resulted in the three-pronged "Lemon test" for determining violations of the church and state separation. Using the test, Meyer said he judged the yoga program on whether it had a secular purpose, whether it advanced or inhibited religion, and whether it fostered an excessive government entanglement with religion.
The answer was "no" in each case, the judge determined.
Why would Unruh omit this critical information from his article? If history is a guide, it's because he sides with the right-wing legal groups' case and has no interest in fairly telling the school district's side of the story.
WND editor Joseph Farah has called for the firing of reporters in other media organizations who he has accused of misrepresenting facts. Yet for all of his blatant misrepresentation, Unruh still has a job. Go figure.
Shocker: CNS' Hunter Writes Article That Doesn't Focus On LGBT-Related Federal Spending Topic: CNSNews.com
The subject matter of Melanie Hunter's Feb. 17 CNSNews.com article isn't all that interesting by itself --about a federal grant to study “models and control methods to coordinate fleets of self-driving vehicles in future transportation networks.”
What is interesting, however, is the fact that this is the first time in more than two months that Hunter has written an article about federal spending that didn't touch on LGBT-related issues. The implication of Hunter's hyper-focus on LGBT-related federal spending is that she believes it's a waste of money.
On Dec. 10, Hunter wrote an article detailing how "The National Institutes of Health has awarded $212,549 in taxpayer dollars to the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill to study how movies influence childhood obesity." In betrween that and her Feb. 17 article, Hunter wrote eight articles focusing on LGBT-related spending -- the onlyarticles focusing on federal spending she wrote during that time.
Hunter has not explained her disproportionate focus on suggesting that federal spending on LGBT issues is a waste of money.
'50 Shades' of Freakout At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
It was a given that WorldNetDaily would not like the "50 Shades of Grey" movie. But the extent of WND's freakout has taken it into areas as weird as the film itself.
The headline of an unbylined Feb. 14 WND article calls the "50 Shades" film "torture porn." Well, no. The S&M games in "50 Shades" involve consenting adults, as opposed to actual "torture porn" (for example, the "Saw" films) or actual torture, like the extraordinary rendition techniques right-wingers like to pretend isn't torture.
The rest of the article goes on to equate "50 Shades" to "pornography" even though the film isn't that by definition -- it's rated R, not X or NC-17.
WND also published a column whose content -- pornography is bad, "50 Shades" is bad, women want to be cherished -- is less remarkable than its author. Donna Rice Hughes' bio describes her as "the CEO and president of the nonprofit Enough Is Enough. She is an Internet safety expert, speaker, author and the Emmy Award-winning producer of the "Internet Safety 101" PBS television series." But it omits the thing she's best known for: having an affair with 1988 presidential candidate Gary Hart, which ultimately sank his campaign.
And anything as sexual as "50 Shades" would not be completely attacked by WND if it didn't drag out the discredited Judith Reisman to somehow blame it all on Alfred Kinsey. And Bob Unruh does just that in a Feb. 21 article:
Researcher Judith Reisman, author of multiple books about sex activist Alfred Kinsey, including “The Kinsey Corruption,” “Kinsey: Crime & Consequences” and “Sexual Sabotage,” says America can blame the “father of the sexual revolution” for the current “Fifty Shades of Grey” mania.
The explicit sex movie, which set a record by collecting nearly $95 million from audiences over the Valentine’s Day weekend, is a direct result of the degradation of values that started with Kinsey’s claim that nearly every member of the “Greatest Generation” engaged in sexual hijinks, she said.
And it now is time, she told WND in an interview, for Congress to begin an investigation of Kinsey, his research methods, his results and his impact on the nation’s morality.
Unruh being a lazy stenographer, he didn't bother to note that numerous questions have been raised about Reisman's so-called research on Kinsey.
NewsBusters' Double Standard on Celebrities' Political Commentary Topic: NewsBusters
Clay Waters -- he of the perennial Media Research Center complaint that it's somehow "liberal bias" for the media to identify conservatives as conservatives -- takes another lame whack at the New York Times in a Feb. 20 NewsBusters post by complaining that it's repeating celebrity criticisms of Rudy Giuliani's smear of President Obama:
Times reporter Damien Cave followed up Friday in a story about anti-Giuliani Twitter commentary from renowned political thinkers: "Giuliani Comments Draw Tweets From Martina Navratilova, Judd Apatow and Others." ("Others" including esteemed former talk show host Larry King, who was "saddened by the news." And if you've lost Larry King...)
Charles Barkley Wishes Obama Was Tough On ISIS Like the King of Jordan
Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are all basketball legends in their own right, but it’s not what they’ve done on the court that’s earning them headlines these days, it’s what they’ve said off the courts that’s getting all the attention.
Barkley told Sports Ilustrated if he could meet anyone today, it would be Jordan’s King Abdullah II because of his response to ISIS burning alive the captured Jordanian pilot, Muath Al-Kaseasbeh, on video. He said he wished Obama was like that:
If NewsBusters is willing to treat Barkley's political opinions seriously, why is Waters bashing the New York Times for doing the exact same thing?
It seems that every time a governmental report comes out detailing the threat that violent right-wing extremists can pose to Americans, WorldNetDaily distorts the research and misleads its readers about what is actually being said.
Well, another report is coming out, and WND is ready to distort and mislead once again. Chelsea Schilling's Feb. 17 WND article starts things off with a band by putting a lie right in the headline: Obama DHS: 'Right-wing extremists' greater threat than ISIS."
Schilling herself -- one of WND's leaders in getting things wrong -- repeats the lie in her opening paragraph: "The Obama administration has named a national security threat it believes is more dangerous than even the Islamic State terrorists beheading, crucifying and burning innocent human beings: Right-wing extremists."
But a couple paragraphs later, Schilling reports that it isn't the DHS making that assertion, it's other law enforcement officials:
CNN doesn’t cite specific sources, but it says the new intelligence report references “24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010.”
“Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to – and in some cases greater than – the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.”
Schilling apparently made no effort to verify the fact that "sovereign citizens" like to kill people. One incident about a father-and-son pair of "sovereign citizens" killing two police officers in Louisiana is treated by Schilling with "reportedly" and "allegedly" disclaimers. In fact, it's all true.
Rather than doing any sort of actual research a reporter would do, Schilling instead rehashes a rote right-wing atatck on the Southern Poverty Law Center.
WND's columnist are even less bound by the facts than WND reporters, which is something that WND editor Joseph Farah is bizarrely proud of. Pamela Geller screeches in her Feb. 19 WND column:
Obama’s war on “countering violent extremism” turns inward – on Americans. CNN reported Thursday that “a new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.”
The DHS report unveils the Obama doctrine – ignoring the jihad and targeting the right – in a deliberate demonization of an increasing number of Americans who understand that our rights are being usurped and that the U.S. government has been hijacked by a collective of destroyers and anti-American operatives. This is not new. Obama made these same vicious accusations in a similar DHS report in early 2009. It is a strategy.
This DHS report is a covert declaration of war. America is “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” This is a declaration of war on that very principle. America was founded on an anti-government idea of freedom and individual rights. Ayn Rand said, “The source of the government’s authority is ‘the consent of the governed.’ This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.” Further, “a dictatorship is a country that does not recognize individual rights, whose government holds total, unlimited power over men.”
We are approaching that level of control.
Obama and his appointed thugs have made the good guys the enemy.
So a man who murders a cop for doing his job, as has happened in Lousiana and elsewhere -- indeed, anti-government extremists are considered to be the top threat to law enforcement -- is a "good guy"?
Geller then falsely smears the SPLC as "members-turned-assassins" who "have been involved in a number of shootings." She harrumphs, "Obama refuses to call Islamic terror Islamic, but will designate Americanism a terror threat."
Perhaps Geller would like to explain to the widows of the two police officers shot and killed by "sovereign citizen" Jerry Kane and his son simply for pulling them over in a traffic stop how the Kanes were "good guys" and real Americans and the police officers were not.
Geller's Obama derangement has reached sickening levels.
WND columnist and foreigner Christopher Monckton also apparently thinks these cop-killers are good guys as well:
Now, as anyone who has worked in government will know perfectly well, it is a central principle of national security that the intelligence services must not – repeat not – allow the political propensities and proclivities of the current administration to sway their judgment or derail their impartiality.
For there is no surer way to encourage domestic terrorism than to give the impression that the intelligence services have ceased to defend all citizens and have instead taken partisan sides with the administration to act selectively against those citizens whom it regards as its political opponents.
Mr. Obama is already in quite enough trouble for bowing to Saudi royalty, calling himself a Muslim, and disingenuously pretending that various Muslim terrorist factions are nothing to do with Islam.
Now his administration has foolishly given the appearance of actively siding with the Islamic terrorists by circulating its heroically daft assessment that “right-wing sovereign citizen extremists” who kill by the twos and threes are more of a threat to the security of the United States than the terrorists who shriek Allahu akhbar as they kill U.S. citizens by the thousands.
Of course, cop-killing extremists are not merely "political opponents" -- they are murderers.
Since he does not even live in America, Monckton is apparently unaware of the sovereign citizen movement's violence. Or perhaps he is aware and is hoping they get close enough to Obama to kill him.