ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Tuesday, March 10, 2015
WND's Geller Flings Poo At Jon Stewart
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Pamela Geller's March 8 WorldNetDaily column is ostensibly about how hw poo emoticon somehow reflects liberal society. But then Geller goes on a poo-flinging tirade of her own against Jon Stewart:

Sharing their disdain for America is Jon Stewart, to whom they should have given the “Most Disgusting Jew on the Planet Award.” No contest. After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ground-breaking speech to Congress last week, Stewart scoffed at the many standing ovations Netanyahu received as the “longest bl-wjob a Jewish man has ever received.”

This vicious traitor, smug and self-righteous, has long been working for the other side under the guise of comedy. Vile. Jon Stewart defines self-loathing Jew. But that’s not enough. He means to take us down with him.

He is leaving Comedy Central, thankfully. But don’t get too happy; they’ll turn the show over to another leftist radical. When does Dennis Miller or someone like that get an HBO or Comedy Central gig? The cultural landscape is under siege by these killers.

Geller apparently missed the fact that Miller did, in fact, have an HBO show for eight years.

Between this, her defense of cop-killing "sovereign citizens" and slurring a rabbi as a "kapo" simply for disagreeing with her hate, Geller is a one-woman excrement-flinging factory.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:36 PM EDT
MRC's Graham Twists Evidence To Perpetuate 'Liberal Media' Conspiracy
Topic: Media Research Center

Here's the genius of the Media Research Center's anti-media agenda: Any evidence that disproves their claims of "liberal bias" can be portrayed as evidence of bias.

On March 8, the MRC's Tim Graham helped feed right-wing speculation that the New York Times deliberately cropped former President George W. Bush and his wife out of a photo of a march in Selma, Alabama.

This manufactured outrage was enough for Times public editor Margaret Sullivan to investigate. Her finding: The Times itself never cropped the photo; the photographer stated that in the photo he took, "Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade" and that the photo is a bad photo technically.

How did Graham respond to this reasoned investigation? By reframing it as more evidence of the conspiracy:

The paper didn’t alter a photograph. But the Bushes were “cropped” out – metaphorically. Their presence didn’t have “impact.”


Obviously, conservatives disagree there’s “no evidence of politics” here. Announcing the photo the Times used “has impact” is code for “makes Obama look good on a notable day in U.S. racial history.”

By contrast, consider the Times on January 12, 2015. They had two large color photos with “impact” on the front page from the unity march after the Charlie Hedbo murders by Islamists. Obviously, there was no Obama in that picture to “crop” out. But the front-page news account by Liz Alderman never used the name “Obama” and waited to mention Attorney General Eric Holder being in Paris until paragraph eight.

In fact, a review of front pages from that Monday through Friday showed no focus on Obama on the Times front page that week. This story ended up on page A-12: “White House Acknowledges Error in Not Sending a Top Official to March in Paris.”

Everything the Times decides is “news” seems very carefully reviewed for its “impact” on Obama.

See? Lack of proof of any actual cropping becomes proof of "metaphorical" cropping. Any evidence that disproves Graham's conspiracy can be twisted to mean the opposite.

Even if the Times had run that bad photo with the Bushes in it, Graham would have, in all likelihood, complained that the Times ran a poor image of the Bushes to make them look bad.

The Times just can't win -- which, presumably, is the way Graham and the MRC like it.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:58 AM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:59 AM EDT
Monday, March 9, 2015
Molotov Mitchell Is Jacked That Obama Dies In New Movie
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily's Molotov Mitchell is already on record as advocating the "abolition of homosexuality." Now he's on record cheering the abolition of President Obama.

Mitchell's March 3 WND video is a review of the new film "Kinsgman: The Secret Service." He's especially giddy that Obama dies in the film, proudly proclaiming that the film is "the first Hollywood film to kill Barack Obama, on-screen no less."

You can hear the joy in Mitchell's voice as he describes how in the film, Obama's head "pop[s] like a pinata to the triumphant sounds of 'Ode to Joy.'" Ol' Molotov serves up his own low-res version of said head-popping:

Mitchell then intones: "He tries to kill America, and dies for it."

Mitchell concludes by delcaring that "other than 'The Interview,' this is the only film this year where you get to see a real-life dictator's head blow up."

Mitchell's unabashed fervor for Obama's fake death could easily translate to fervor for his actual death. Something tells me ol' Molotov should be expecting a visit from the nice fellows at the Secret Service pretty soon.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:17 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, March 9, 2015 9:18 PM EDT
CNS-Mark Levin Lovefest Watch

It's been a while since we checked in with CNS' obsession with promoting every little pearl of wisdom that falls from Mark Levin's mouth, but yes, they're still at it:

Levin: Federal Gov’t Shutdown ‘Horror Story Possibilities’ Nothing But ‘A Lie’

Mark Levin: ‘Do You Think Obama's a Christian? I Don't Think He Is'

Levin to Obama: ‘Thousands of Anne Franks’ Brutalized by Islamo-Nazis'

Mark Levin: 'Our Rights Do Come From God'

Mark Levin: Obama ‘Is Building the Iranian Islamo-nazi Caliphate’

Since this is stenography and not reporting, there's no attempt to fact-check anything Levin says -- apparently, if he says it, it's axoimatically true.

There's also no mention of the fact that CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, has a business deal with Levin in which they cross-promote each other. It's also not disclosed whether all these fawning Levin posts are part of that promotion deal.

Posted by Terry K. at 7:39 PM EDT
WND Misleads About Proposed Armor-Piercing Ammo Ban
Topic: WorldNetDaily

As could be expected from WorldNetDaily, its reporting on a proposed federal ban of one type of armor-piercing ammuntion is filled with misinformation.

A Feb. 16 WND article by Leo Hohmann contradicts itself by lamenting the proposed ban of the "so-called 'armor-piercing'" rounds, then admits a couple paragraphs later that "it was a given that rounds from any high-powered hunting rifle could penetrate the soft armor worn by officers," including the "green tip" M855 round proposed to be banned because of the existence of newly created handguns that can fire such rounds.

Hohmann also quotes the National Rifle Association attacking the proposed ban because "the M855 ball should have never been classified as “armor piercing” to begin with." But he doesn't mention that the NRA itself has banned the use of the M855 round at some of its own shooting ranges.

In a March 3 article, Cheryl Chumley writes that the M855 round is "popular among AR-15 enthusiasts and sporting types – especially among big game hunters, who like the powerful 'armor-piercing' capability of the shot." She didn't mention that big-game animals do not typically wear armor.

In a March 4 WND article, Hohmann characterized the M855 round as "the ammunition for the popular AR-15 rifle." In fact, 168 other types of ammo that can be used in the rifles would remain legal.

Hohmann also try to downplay the bullet's lethality by repeating claims that no police officer "has been taken down by a criminal using an AR-15 handgun." But Hohmann does not offer a sporting justification for the AR-15 handgun.

Look for WND to keep the controversy -- and the misinformation -- alive.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:21 PM EDT
Sunday, March 8, 2015
CNS Obsesses Over Single Line Referencing Gays In Obama's Selma Speech
Topic:'s story on President Obama's speech in Selma, Alabama, for the 50th anniversary of the famous civil rights march there isn't even a story, really -- it's just a lazy, unbylined copy-and-paste of a few paragraphs of the speech from the White House website, plucked out of context from the much longer speech.

Why did CNS do this? Because Obama said something CNS didn't like: he failed to denigrate gays. Or, as the completely context-free headline screams, "Obama: 'We’re The Gay Americans Whose Blood Ran in the Streets of San Francisco’."

So offended was CNS that it put this out-of-context speech excerpt and its even more out-of-context headline as the lead story of its website today, accompanied with a picture of an arrogant-looking Obama (because that's the impression of him CNS wants its readers to have).

CNS is has been ramping up its anti-gay agenda in recent months, and this article shows how it's happening.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:48 PM EDT
Updated: Sunday, March 8, 2015 10:54 PM EDT
WND's Farah Remains A Birther Dead-Ender
Topic: WorldNetDaily

In a March 6 WorldNetDaily column in which he claims tofind great meaning that "President Barack Obama" can be anagrammed into “an Arab-backed imposter” (which seems to contradict his longtime assertion that he doesn't recognize Obama as his president), Joseph Farah writes this:

Just for the record, WND has been making the case that Obama is and always has been an “imposter.” He’s simply not constitutionally eligible for the presidency. But he not only fooled America once, he fooled us twice. You know what they say about that. Shame on us.

Farah doesn't explain what reasoning he uses to come to the conclusion that Obama is "simply not constitutionally eligible for the presidency." He may be using his own website, which has steadfastly refused to report how WND's birther conspiracies have been repeatedly discredited.

At the risk of boring ourselves to death since we already did this about four years ago, let's look at the evidence that destroys Farah's claim, shall we?

As WND itself has conceded, the constitutional requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" has never been explicitly defined by any federal court. Birthers have repeatedly invoked Emmerich de Vattel "The Law of Nations" as a defense of the idea that the Founders intended for "natural born" to mean born of two parents who are citizens, but that interpretation relies on translations that came after the Constitution was ratified.

Birthers (like WND's Aaron Klein) have also cited the 1874 Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett as defining "natural born citizen." But that decision involved a woman who was suing for the right to vote, not presidential eligibility; the woman's status as a "natural born citizen" was not the issue; and the court ruling discusses only two types of citizens, "natural born" and "naturalized." The more direct precedent is the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in America was a U.S. citizen.

Others claim that a 2008 Senate resolution declaring John McCain to be a "natural born" citizen, in Klein's words, "seems to define the term as one who is born to two U.S. citizens." The Senate may have done so regarding McCain's citizenship, but it also did not establish two citizen parents as the only possible way to be defined as a "natural born" citizen.

The birther conspiracy that Obama's long-form birth certificate is a forgery has also been discredited. The purported "modifications" birthers claim exist in the PDF scan of the birth certificate released by the White House have been easily reproduced through scanning the document into a Xerox scanner.

Further, as former Cold Case Posse member Brian Reilly revealed, the state of Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth certificate showing him to be born in Hawaii should have effective ended the witch hunt, had posse chief Mike Zullo not disregarded it.

So, yeah, Farah is lying about Obama once again. Why are we not surprised?

(P.S. We've contacted Farah to obtain the evidence he's using to back up his claim that Obama's not eligible to be president. We'll update this post if he responds.)

Posted by Terry K. at 9:20 PM EST
Saturday, March 7, 2015
CNS Unemployment Numbers Distortion Watch

After a month in which it was forced to report good news on the unemployment front because it apparently couldn't find sufficiently negative numbers to cherry-pick like it usually does, is back to its old routine with February's numbers in a pair of articles by Ali Meyer:

56,023,000: Record Number of Women Not in Labor Force

62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months

Meyer doesn't mention in either article that 295,000 jobs were created in February and the overall unemployment rate rell to 5.5 percent.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:20 PM EST
Obama Derangement Syndrome, Supersize WorldNetDaily Edition
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Even with the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in full swing here in the Washington, D.C., area, the imminent arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress, amid continued snubs and insults from our “Muslim in chief” and his minions, like National Security Adviser Susan Rice and her equally anti-Judeo Christian cohort Secretary of State John Kerry, Republican presidential candidates and the conservative media generally continue to play a politically correct game of dodging the real issue concerning the rise in terrorism worldwide.

-- Larry Klayman, Feb. 27 WorldNetDaily column

Of course Obama hates America!

For crying out loud, explain his words and behavior with any other characterization!

He grew up under the mentorship of Frank Marshall Davis, a committed, card-carrying member of the Communist Party.

He was well-connected with other radical leftists throughout his life.

A credible postman is in a WND video explaining how he met Obama outside the Chicago home of the parents of Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground domestic terrorist, while he was attending Columbia University as a “foreign student.” He described the Ayers family as his patrons and that he was going to become president of the United States.

-- Joseph Farah, Feb. 27 WND column

I’m sorry, but no one has explained to me how the skin color of elected officials influences how we should judge the rationality and the effectiveness of their words and actions.

It’s clear that Barack Obama, as well as all elected and appointed blacks, are essentially untouchable. That is absurd.

Barack Obama is a flawed human being, as we all are, but his position of power in our government makes him a legitimate target of criticism for his governing tactics.

But no, because he is biracial – white mother, black father.

But even that is ignored. He is black, we are told, so shut up.

-- Barbara Simpson, March 1 WND column

There is no question about whether President Obama – along with Secretary of State John Kerry and the editorial pages of many newspapers – has a particular dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But there is another question: Why?

And the answer is due to an important rule of life that too few people are aware of:

Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.

-- Dennis Prager, March 2 WND column

The Obama White House is in full war mode against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of our best ally in the Middle East, for accepting House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to speak before Congress, while it mollycoddles that region’s most dangerous nation, Iran.

No one crosses Obama without facing his wrath. No one dares. He is the president.

-- David Limbaugh, March 2 WND column

If Mr. Obama has an itchy banning finger, he should ban racist and tax cheat Al Not-So-Sharpton from access to the White House. He should ban the practice or promotion of Shariah law in America by claiming it is an act of sedition.

-- Ted Nugent, March 4 WND column

Two glaring factors finally bring the depth of corruption and treachery of these establishment Republicans into sharp focus;:one is the alacrity with which they skirted the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to hold the office of president and the widespread criminal fraud attendant to his candidacy. Worse, they having completely ignored the blatant and mounting criminal actions of his administration. These speak to their roles as accessories after the fact, if not direct accomplices.

It is apparent that the GOP leadership – the only legal and practicable impediment to this administration – intend to let Obama shepherd America straight to hell without lifting a finger to stop him, no matter what he does.

In my view, the “no matter what he does” part has a profound and increasingly frightening ring to it.

-- Erik Rush, March 4 WND column

Obviously, those who believe that even the lies that Obama has told about Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservatives and Obamacare, were well-intentioned will defend his patriotism, just as those who take him at his word accept his claims to being a Christian.

On the other hand, those of us who have not had our brains washed, rinsed and blow-dried, do not accept that which is blatantly false. How can someone who has spoken incessantly about America’s sins, apologizing for our history and insulting our allies – going so far as to exile the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office – be regarded as a patriot?


Unfortunately, millions of blacks trooped out to vote for one of their own, even though, considering that his mother was white and his biological father was an Arab, he was about as black as I am. But, luckily for him, he looked black, which explained why millions of white voters who would normally never have even considered voting for such an unqualified lout, felt compelled to prove they weren’t racists by voting for the guy who could at least pass for black.

And in doing so, they exposed their own racism by ignoring Martin Luther King’s injunction to judge a man by his character and not by the color of his skin.

-- Burt Prelutsky, March 5 WND column

Question: Why are Americans so certain there will be a presidential election in 2016 and that Barack Obama will leave office in January 2017?

Answer: Because it’s the law and because it’s American tradition.

However, we currently have a man in the White House who respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power.


So with all of this history – and much more, in fact – why do we assume Obama will step aside willingly from the presidency following an election in 2016?

I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why.

-- Joseph Farah, March 5 WND column

Posted by Terry K. at 9:45 AM EST
Friday, March 6, 2015
Ruddy's O'Reilly Defense Pays Off With Fox News Endorsement
Topic: Newsmax

Remember Christopher Ruddy's enthusiastic defense of Bill O'Reilly in the face of his exaggerations and falsehoods? Well, it paid off in the publicity department.

Jim Meyers happily writes in a March 4 Newsmax article:

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly offered up praise for Newsmax on his show Tuesday night, calling our website's fact-based reporting "refreshing."

"Last night we had a segment on how nasty the upcoming presidential campaign is likely to be because of the defamatory websites," O'Reilly told viewers.

"Well, there are some exceptions to the sewer. Check out It had some very interesting political analysis. Chris Ruddy and the guys actually try to gather facts, which is refreshing.

"That's the tip of the day."

Meyers does admit that "O'Reilly was no doubt subtly responding" to Ruddy's defense of him. But if O'Reilly didn't mention he was endorsing Newsmax because it defended him, doesn't that actually further the idea that O'Reilly is dishonest?

O'Reilly's endorsement would also seem to contradict Fox News' stance against Newsmax, which operates that TV news channel that directly competes with Fox. Last week, Fox attacked Ruddy for being friends with Bill Clinton and donating to his foundation.

But O'Reilly effectively negated that attack with his endorsement, which is all that matters to Newsmax.

Posted by Terry K. at 10:58 AM EST
WND's Farah Is Just Not Down With All That Science Stuff
Topic: WorldNetDaily

Joseph Farah devoted his Feb. 26 WorldNetDaily column to a screed against science -- specifically attacking National Geographic for highlighting "the war against science":

Sadly, I don’t have the time or space to refute and rebut every aspect of this full-throated endorsement of modern “science” as the new priesthood, whose conclusions are questioned at the threat of excommunication, not to mention humiliation in rational circles.

In short, if you doubt any conclusions of the modern scientific establishment, you’re not only a rube, but you are dangerous.

Apparently, in the 20th or 21st centuries, “science” finally worked out all the bugs of the past and is now certain about all the big and little questions of life. There are no more mysteries. There is no more ambiguity. There are no more unknowns. There are no more doubts about matters like man-made catastrophic climate change, that evolution explains everything we need to know about the origins and diversity of life on the planet, vaccinations, genetically modified food and just about everything else.

Science is the final arbiter. Even though science has made innumerable blunders in the past, today science has it 100 percent right and there is no room for skepticism, this National Geographic opus concludes. If you question anything about science’s conclusions (as if all scientists are united on any of these matters), you might as well join the Flat Earth Society.

There are no nuances. There are no big questions left to answer. The new priesthood has spoken.

It never occurs to National Geographic that what they call “science” is actually a government-science complex with immense power, money and influence that is merely frustrated with its inability to coercively persuade everyone of their infinite wisdom even with control of the schools, the colleges, the universities, the major media, the museums, the zoos, the observatories, the medical schools, etc.

Among the things Farah's upset with is National Geographic's stand on the side global warming existing and vaccines helping people. But  he engages in some old-school paranoia as well:

As for me and my house, we reject fluoride. It’s getting harder and harder when the government adds this poison, which accumulates in your body, to your water supply. But we manage.

If Farah so soundly rejects science, is it any wonder why he's so unable to recognize the truth that his website publishes lie after lie?

Posted by Terry K. at 1:15 AM EST
Thursday, March 5, 2015
MRC Rushes To Defend Ben Carson Over His Anti-Gay Comments
Topic: Media Research Center

The Media Research Center's philosophy: If a journalist dares to question a conservative about his views, you are clearly a liberal or, even worse, an "activist."

The headline on Matthew Balan's March 4 NewsBusters post sums up that philosophy nicely: "LGBT Activist in CNN Anchor's Clothing Cuomo Hounds Carson on Marriage." Balan is appalled that CNN host Chris Cuomo would dare to question conservative darling Ben Carson about his views on homosexuality:

On Wednesday's New Day, CNN's Chris Cuomo likened traditional marriage legislation to legalizing slavery as he interviewed Dr. Ben Carson. When the conservative personality suggested, on the issue of same-sex "marriage," that "civil issues of that nature should be determined at the state level," Cuomo retorted, "What if people of a state vote for a law...that winds up infringing on the rights of a minority – like happened very often with slavery; like, many would argue, is happening now with people who are gay?"

The anchor acted as a left-wing activist on the subject, as he has done in the past, as he and Dr. Carson sparred for the remainder of the interview segment:

Balan buried Carson's bizarre claim that being gay is a choice because "a lot of people who go into prison – go into prison straight – and when they come out, they're gay."

Apparently, Balan believes any claim made by a conservative is never to be challenged by the media.

When Carson's claim proved to be too toxic for even him to defend, he walked it back in a Facebook post.

But that's not the lead of Kristine Marsh's March 5 NewsBusters post. Instead, Marsh helps Carson play the victim by hyping his assertion -- made to Sean Hannity, whom Carson knows will never challenge his anti-gay views -- that CNN "prodded" him to answer a question about the nature of homosexuality, then "spun his comments."

Marsh simply pasted a screenshot of Carson's Facebook walkback of his comments, declining to comment on the complete nature of his capitulation. Carson also declared he supports civil unions for gays and anti-discrimination laws that cover gays -- both positions that right-wingers like the MRC abhor.

LGBT writers have questioned the sincerity of Carson's apology given his victim-playing on Hannity's radio show. But Marsh didn't mention that, either.

Posted by Terry K. at 7:37 PM EST
NEW ARTICLE: Knowing Farah By His Fruits
Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah loves to claim that President Obama's isn't a real Christian. But do Farah and his website adhere to Christian principles? Read more >>

Posted by Terry K. at 11:14 AM EST
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Newsmax's Ruddy Defends O'Reilly
Topic: Newsmax

The conservative media continues to line up behind Bill O'Reilly. Newsmax's Christopher Ruddy adds his whitewash in a March 2 column, declaring the controversy about O'Reilly's fabrications and exaggerations to be "much ado about nothing." Ruddy did try to go into specifics, unlike the Media Research Center.

While Ruddy says that NBC's Brian Williams was punished to severely for his exaggerations, he's fully on board with the right-wing meme that criticism of O'Reilly is a liberal conspiracy:

So why the targeting now of O’Reilly on very flimsy accusations?

For one thing, media outlets and liberal groups are upset about conservatives' criticism of NBC anchor Brian Williams.


Perhaps the O’Reilly brouhaha is a case of professional jealousy at work.

David Corn, who wrote the Mother Jones story, is a former Fox News contributor who didn't have his contract renewed, according to Joe Concha, columnist for Mediaite and host of "The Daily Wrap" on Newsmax TV.

O'Reilly has also been at the very pinnacle of cable news for so long — more than 15 years — it must infuriate his detractors.

He has also become a fantastically successful best-selling author. His latest, "Killing Patton," is currently No. 6 on The New York Times list of best-selling nonfiction books.

Then there is the fact that O'Reilly has always been somewhat of a maverick who doesn't play the establishment media game. But the attacks on his credibility have gone far enough. Some attacks are so ridiculous they are close to joke status.

After presenting video evidence to back up his reporting on one of the so-called fabricated stories, O'Reilly told viewers of his cable show: "I want to stop this now. I hope we can stop it. I really do."

Yes, stop all of this horseradish.

But isn't the idea that O'Reilly is the victim of a liberal conspiracy just as much a load of horseradish?

Posted by Terry K. at 12:24 PM EST
WND Pretends It Never Portrayed Obama As The Antichrist
Topic: WorldNetDaily

A March 1 WorldNetDaily article by Leo Hohmann forwards speculation that the new prime minister of Greece, Alexios Tsipras, is the Antichrist. This is dutifully followed by "prophecy experts" shooting down the idea, as well as such speculation about anyone.

Hohmann kicks things off with WND fave Joel Richardson:

Joel Richardson, author of the best-seller “The Islamic Antichrist” as well as “Mideast Beast” and “When a Jew Rules the World,” is as interested as anyone in the rise of the world figure the Bible calls the antichrist. He’s written two books that deal explicitly with that topic. But, he says, it can become a distraction.

He points to all the misses of the past few decades in which well-known global figures were seen as the embodiment of Satan on earth – Ayatollah Khomeini, President Clinton, Javier Solana and nearly every pope.


President Obama is in his final years in office, but rest assured, Richardson said, this article will be followed by dozens of comments declaring that it would be remiss for any good antichrist speculator to ignore the fact that Obama is indeed the lawless one, the Son of perdition.

You know who helped fuel speculation that Obama is the Antichrist? Joel Richardson.

In 2009, Richardson wrote a WND column headlined "What Obama and the Antichrist have in common." Despite writing that he wanted to "make it very clear that in no way do I believe that President Obama is the Antichrist," Richardson made sure to draw parallels between the two: "Today, throughout the Islamic world, the masses are yearning for and longing for a populist messiah figure known as the Mahdi who, according to their very own prophecies, will employ precisely the same methods as Obama."

Hohmann goes on to quote another WND fave, Carl Gallups:

Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, various popes, various U.S. presidents, and other powerful world leaders have made the list. And, it is no secret that many Christians claim to see “antichrist spirit” characteristics in any number of current world leaders. Again, their batting average has been abysmal and if these prophecy gurus were baseball players they would not even make it in the minor leagues.

“There can be little doubt that the ‘spirit of antichrist’ continues to grow stronger with the passing years and the continual degradation of the world’s attitude toward the Word of God and Jesus Christ,” Gallups said. “The advice I give to Christians who inquire upon this subject is: carefully discern the times, rightly divide the Word of truth, stay cognizant of the growing spirit of deception and deceit so that we might speak biblical truth and relevance to the decaying culture around us, and keep the main thing – the main thing. Winning souls, equipping the saints, and effectively advancing the Kingdom of Jesus Christ in hearts and lives.”

And who is one of those minor-league prophecy gurus whose batting average has been abysmal in identifying a certain U.S. president with Antichrist tendencies? Carl Gallups.

Under the pseudonym PPSimmons, Gallups made a YouTube video in 2009 -- promoted at WND, of course --  claiming that “the Greek word for ‘lightning’ is ‘astrape’, and the Hebrew equivalent is ‘Baraq,’” and that "If spoken by a Jewish rabbi today, influenced by the poetry of Isaiah, he would say these words in Hebrew ... 'I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.'"

As blogger Richard Bartholomew pointed out at the time, Gallups misinterprets the biblical text he's quoting from and mistranslates the Greek into Hebrew.

Curiously, Hohmann never mentioned Richardson's or Gallups' previous adventures in linking Obama to the Antichrist -- or any of the other WND writers who have made similar claims. Just a couple weeks ago, WND's Joe Kovacs presented the claim that "the night Obama was first elected president in November 2008, the three-digit winning lottery number in Illinois, the state in which Obama resided at the time he was running, was 666" as evidence Obama is the Antichrist.

C'mon, WND, don't walk back your Obama derangement now -- own it! That's the only reason people read WND these days, after all!

Posted by Terry K. at 1:09 AM EST

Newer | Latest | Older

Bookmark and Share

Get the WorldNetDaily Lies sticker!

Find more neat stuff at the ConWebWatch store!

Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!

Support This Site

« March 2015 »
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google