Muslim Derangement Syndrome Watch, Mychal Massie Edition Topic: WorldNetDaily
Whether it is another transpicuous display of Erebusic diversity (and it is), or another blatant attempt to transmogrify the Untied States into accepting the incursion of Islam as a valued tradition of America (and it is), all reasonable-minded Americans should be outraged.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag isn’t a case of “should be” always said in English, it is a case of “it must always be” pledged in English. There is no acceptable reason for it to be otherwise. For this columnist and hundreds of millions of other Americans, English is recognized as the official language of the United States, regardless of the fact that Congress and Obama refuse to codify it as same. It is the language of those whose blood was shed – from which the Pledge was born.
Islam played no part in America’s history apart from ensuring that there was a robust supply of slaves.
I emphatically state that Muslims are not welcome to come here and form their own idea of government and establish their own definitions of what is acceptable based on their so-called religious beliefs. This is the United States of America. It is not an Islamic outpost.
Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance isn’t “a simple student activity to promote mutual understanding”; it is an act of reverence to those who gave their lives to make America free. It is a Pledge of loyalty born out of the debt that was paid in blood for America to become the greatest nation in the world, and if Muslims do not like that, then I submit perhaps they would be more comfortable back in the Middle East.
Charles Barkley and NewsBusters: The End of the Affair Topic: NewsBusters
After less than two months, NewsBusters has ended its brief infatuation with Charles Barkley.
In a Feb. 20 post, Melissa Mullins praised Barkley for saying that he admired Jordan’s King Abdullah II for being "heroic" by personally going after those who had kidnapped and killed a Jordanian pilot and that his reaction to Hillary Clinton was to think about voting Republican.
That one-sided lovefest, alas, has come to a screeching halt. An April 3 post by Scott Whitlock lashes out at Barkley for having "sneered" that those who support "religious freedom" laws in Indiana are "religious nuts" who "hide behind the Bible." This was a "hateful attack" by Barkley,Whitlock assured us.
Whitlock didn't mention that NewsBusters had praised Barkley's opinions just a few weeks earlier; instead, he complained that "In 2008, CNN brought on Barkley to rail against 'fake Christians.'"
Whatever will Barkley do now that NewsBusters doesn't like him anymore? He'll probably figure out something.
Vadum's March 29 WND article is a masterpiece of sloppy reporting, starting with this ominous opening:
The Obama administration is using your tax dollars to back a super-wealthy, left-wing charity that cuts checks to a myriad of avowedly "progressive" causes, including the notorious Media Matters for America, founded by Hillary Clinton ally and Fox News nemesis David Brock.
It's just one of many examples of how in the Obama era, government is handing out money to nonprofits that share the ideology and political inclinations of a president who looks back warmly on his time as a community organizer in Chicago.
It takes numerous paragraphs and even more numerous extraneous partisan attacks to lay it out, but the gist of Vadum's article is this: The Social Innovation Fund, which is administered by the taxpayer-supported Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), gave a $7.5 million grant to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation for a certain educational program that is "designed to increase the number of third graders who read proficiently in 11 high need school districts in San Mateo County, California."
Had Vadum stopped there, he would have been on safe ground. Instead he goes conspiratorial, accusing the Silicon Valley Community Foundation of being a "left-wing" nonprofit that is "already awash in private funds" due to its links with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Vadum claims the foundation "doesn’t represent the political proclivities of most Americans" because it has given some money to "left-wing" groups like the Center for Responsible Lending (a nonpartisan group that educates Americans about predatory lending practices) and the National Immigration Forum (which apparently violates Vadum's right-wing sensibilities by not hating immigrants).
Vadum suggests that the federal grant money is going to these purportedly "left-wing" causes:
So how did the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which doesn’t represent the political proclivities of most Americans, get its hands on federal money?
Federal bureaucrats get to decide which groups and proposals are funded by the Social Innovation Fund. SIF creates a kind of artificial civil society, one designed from above by elites. It focuses on three areas that are hard to define with precision: “economic opportunity, youth development, and healthy futures.”
In practice, it means that bureaucrats and grant recipients propose more government spending and bigger government as solutions to more or less all problems.
It also means SIF uses taxpayer money to help groups hostile to the interests of taxpayers. Even worse, many of these groups want to remake society along radical left-wing lines.
In fact, such federal grants are typically watched closely to make sure the money is spent on the program it is intended, and the foundation must also verify that.
If Vadum's smear tactic sounds familiar, it is. Back in 2004, WND did the same thing to Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of then-Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, by claiming that her donations to the Tides Foundation (which Vadum also accuses the Silicon Valley Community Foundation of funding) went to various and sundry radical causes, even though her donations were specifically earmarked for specific, non-radical purposes. When WND was finally forced to report the truth about Heinz Kerry and Tides, it then declared the truth was irrelevant to its anti-Kerry political crusade.
Vadum is doing the same thing here -- claiming that Obama is personally sending federal money to fund various "left-wing" groups while ignoring the specific programs for which that money is used. Vadum's entire WND series does this.
In a follow-up article, Vadum suggests that AARP received a CNCS grant because it was "one of Obamacare's chief cheerleaders" and "has an unabashedly left-wing political agenda" -- largely overlooking the fact that the grant given to AARP was for increasing financial stability in older women, which has nothing to do with Obamacare.
Another Vadum article attacks another CNCS funding recipient, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. Because Vadum is such a bad writer, it's suggested early on that the Clark Foundation is "named for President Obama's Marxist law-school mentor, known for his promotion of the radical 'critical race theory.'" But as Vadum later writes, the foundation is named after the "daughter of 19th century perfumer David Hall McConnell, founder of cosmetic giant Avon," and that his real issue is that "Clark Foundation has given grants to the Dorchester, Massachusetts-based organization BELL," named in honor of Derrick A. Bell Jr., Harvard Law’s first black tenured professor. Vadum notes that the CNCS money he's attacking goes toward "improving the educational skills and workforce readiness of economically disadvantaged young people as well as helping them to avoid high-risk behavior," but he doesn't explain why he apparently thinks that's an unworthy cause -- or bother to prove that any of it ever went to BELL.
Finally, Vadum complains that "The Obama administration has given $16.8 million since 2010 to its allies at a left-wing nonprofit known as the Local Initiatives Support Corp. LISC, in turn, has provided grants to many radical groups, including a Chicago-based nonprofit founded by the late Marxist activist Saul Alinsky." Needless to say, at no point does Vadum prove that any federal money went to that Alinsky-founded group (nor did he mention that Alinsky died more than 40 years ago).
In short, Vadum is doing what he always does -- cranking out factually deficient, innuendo-laced right-wing screeds that are designed to keep up the hate factor on the right.
Strangely, such shoddy work has kept him employed as the "senior editor" at the Capital Research Center -- and, not so strangely, a byline at WND.
Meyer couldn't find room in any of the three articles she wrote to mention that 126,000 jobs were created in March -- even though the number is considered a disappointment and, thus, ripe for CNS' bad-news-only approach to unemployment under the Obama administration.
Does homosexuality cause harm? As the author of Romans rightly points out, it does. It makes homosexuals ill. And then it kills them. Unpleasantly, permanently and irremediably.
The Church’s continuous teaching on homosexuality is not some outmoded, fuddy-duddy, far-right, redneck hate-crime. It is born of love for those who might otherwise be drawn into the homosexual deathstyle. It is intended to prevent the misery, disease and death that homosexuality – no less than smoking – brings to its unfortunate practitioners.
Thirty years ago, I pointed out in the American Spectator that in the absence of the usual public-health measure to contain a new and fatal infection – immediate, compulsory, permanent isolation of carriers – millions would die of HIV. I also pointed out that Western sensibilities would not permit the identification and isolation of carriers.
-- Christopher Monckton, March 29 WorldNetDaily column
Considering that less than 2 percent of Americans self-identify as homosexual, why is there such a vigorous effort to accommodate homosexuals afoot, and to legitimize not only the lifestyles of homosexual men and women, but a broad range of generally unrelated sexual preferences, practices and gender identifications?
Further, why are the youngest of Americans – school children – a central focus in this endeavor of public policy?
Most importantly: From whence did this imperative arise?
The answers both illustrate and confirm something I have said for a long time: Efforts on the behalf of homosexuals in the area of civil rights have precious little to do with the civil rights of homosexuals (real or imagined) and everything to do with achieving the optimal moral debasement of American society.
Although many homosexuals argue for the normalcy of their sexual orientation, it is not their desires nor motivations that have driven the agenda reflected in the points described above. That was the brainchild of radical leftists, who have spent the last 50 years insinuating themselves into positions of influence in America.
Their objective of moral debasement gave rise to the imperative for neutralizing Christianity, America’s chief force for moral stability.
By the way, if you don’t think this war on religious freedom is being carefully orchestrated, you are completely in the dark.
In each case I’ve studied, homosexual activists have specifically and deliberately targeted business owners who they know are Bible-believing, committed Christians. Anyone needing a photographer, a videographer, a caterer or a wedding-cake baker to commemorate their same-sex marriage vows should have no problem finding many eager for their business. This is not about “anti-gay discrimination.” This is about religious discrimination, religious bigotry, coercion and punishment targeted against individual believers and, in fact, a class of people based on their religious beliefs.
If the imperative to respect homosexual passion is imposed by law for all human beings, then the disposition to treat sexual passion as an irresistible impulse, rather than a choice, becomes the norm. What will become of the human species if this new imperative encourages homosexuality, tantalizing people with the prospect of sexual pleasure entirely unalloyed with any responsibility for procreation and child rearing?
As I observed in a recent article, the result could be precipitously declining natural birthrates and the concrete extinction of the human species. Is it wrong to act by law to forestall such consequences? Is it wrong for the people of Indiana or any other state to show their special regard for the exercise of unalienable right involved in procreation, employing for that purpose the power the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment reserves to them?
Get off your knees, Gov. Pence; you’re not in a gay bathhouse (where only gays are, presumably, welcome). Muster a coherent defense of the bedrock of a free republic – and of civilization itself: the rights of private property and freedom of association.
Why do men like Mr. Pence, who understand these principles all too well, buckle before a mob of lobotomized tyrants with the intelligence of a Miley Cyrus?
For [Tim Cook] and other homosexual activists, Christians cannot observe their religion and live by the Bible’s words they hold sacred without discriminating against gays. If this is about “how we treat each other as human beings,” as Cook writes, then how can he justify a same-sex couple going to a baker or photographer they well know is Christian, for whom homosexuality is a sin, and demand a cake or photography for a gay wedding? Can Tim Cook really believe that this is decent, tolerant, freedom loving human behavior?
The truth is that the objective of the homosexual campaign is not about American freedom. The objective is the de-legitimization and annihilation of Christianity in America.
CNS Readers Call DC Delegate A 'Whore' For Being Pro-Choice Topic: CNSNews.com
As we've observed, it seems that CNSNews.com publishes articles on certain subjects for the express purpose of letting its readers vent their anger and hatred.
So it appears in an April 2 CNS article by Lauretta Brown featuring a statement by District of Columbia congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton that "Nothing is more under attack than reproductive choice in America today.Among the comments on the article are these:
Stupid ignorant wh*ore.
Iran is getting nukes and this whore is worried about contraception??? F*CK her and the PC crowd we have a Country to save!!!
As of this writing, the comments have remained posted for 19 hours, which means that either CNS' comment-monitoring is lax or nonexistent or that CNS considers such a vile, degrading insult to be acceptable discourse in its comment threads.
Even WND's Corsi Won't Question Cruz's Eligibility To Be President Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is so averse to applying to Ted Cruz the same presidential "eligibility" standards it imposed on Barack Obama, even WND's chief birther won't touch the issue.
Corsi -- who promoted the issue so much at WND that he wormed his way onto Sheriff Joe Arpaio's incompetent "cold case posse" investigating Obama's eligibility, thus ensuring its investigation would be biased and the outcome predetermined -- has been utterly silent on the issue so far. He has said nothing about Cruz's eligibilty on his Twitter account (which he has blocked ConWebWatch from following, though there are plenty of ways around that) since Cruz announced his president run on March 23.
Corsi wrote about Cruz in a March 31 WND article -- but it had nothing to do with eligibility. The apparently more pressing issue was the links Cruz's wife has to the Council on Foreign Relations, a "globalist" group hated by right-wingers like Corsi.
Much of Corsi's article was dedicated to letting a Cruz spokesman spin away the link, stating that Heidi Cruz was merely a "term member" who worked on a single CFR report and that her contribution to it was "narrowly focused on economic issues." Corsi also quotes the spokesman saying that Cruz has called CFR “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty.”
Corsi also self-servingly refers to the "2007 bestselling book “The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada,” while not mentioning that he wrote that book or explaining on what universe that book was "bestselling."
It seems WND has declared a total blackout on reporting on the question of Cruz's eligibility -- and WND's chief birther is playing along.
NewsBusters Promotes Harry Reid Conspiracy Theory Topic: NewsBusters
We've noted NewsBusters' step toward WorldNetDaily territory by freaking out over yoga. Now it's picking up WND's penchant for conspiracy theories.
In a March 30 post, P.J. Gladnick suggests there's more to Harry Reid's injury than has been reported, and that the media is somehow covering it up:
It has been three months since Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's exercise equipment accident story and he remains blind in his injured eye. So when will Reid sue the exercise equipment company or even mention the brand name? So far nothing solid on this from Reid and the mainstream media continues to remain on incurious mode.
This was particularly noticebable last week when Reid announced that he won't be seeking re-relection. Speculation again heated up on talk radio and in the blogosphere about this accident but from the MSM.....the sounds of silence. Among those taking note of the strange circumstances of Reid's accident were Rush Limbaugh and John Hinderaker of Powerline who wrote two articles on this subject.
Gladnick avoids mentioning the gist of Hinderaker's conspiracy theory -- that Reid was beaten up by mobsters -- but he wants an "MSM reporter" to delve into it.
Of course, Gladnick and Hinderaker ignore the fact that there's absolutely no evidence to back up the conspiracy theory, as Bloomberg's David Weigel details, quoting the top political reporter in Nevada who would presumably know a thing or two about Reid:
There is, indeed, no evidence that mobsters actually broke through Reid's security detail and worked him over. But there is evidence that reporters were asking questions.
"Here's what I was able to piece together from people who should know," says Jon Ralston, a Nevada reporter who has covered Reid for years. "Reid is a fitness nut. He had just moved into his new Vegas house, and didn't have a place to do his band routine. So he attached it to something in his bathroom, which was a very dumb thing to do, it turns out. The whole mobster thing is just insane. Not just because there is no evidence, but it makes no sense."
Why, for Limbaugh et al, is the cover-up story believable? It's because they assume the media might prefer to cover a ridiculous story than to expose the corruption they're sure Harry Reid is guilty of. The problem: They haven't done as much work to prove that as reporters did to verify what actually happened to Reid—or as much work as reporters have done, over the years, to vet Reid's finances and associations.
In other words, Gladnick is engaging in what could be called Harry Reid Derangement Syndrome.
NEW ARTICLE: Jesse Lee Peterson's Obama Derangement Topic: WorldNetDaily
As with many WND columnists, Peterson has acquired the disease of spouting bizarre and hateful things about the president. Read more >>
AIM's Kincaid Can't Take Criticism Topic: Accuracy in Media
Remember last week, when Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid declared the Huffington Post to be a "gay porn outlet" by cherry-picking a few erotically themed items? Well,Kincaid doesn't like the criticism he's been getting about it.
Kincaid used a March 31 AIM article to lash back and downplay what he actually did:
Not surprisingly, the pro-homosexual Huffington Post ran a glowing profile of the summit by its own correspondent, a self-described “Lesbian-Feminist, Public Intellectual PhD” by the name of Marcie Bianco. This appeared in the on-line publication’s “Gay Voices” section, which has also featured a video of full frontal male nudity.
When I pointed this out recently, I was attacked by the “conservative” Daily Caller for somehow exaggerating what The Huffington Post had done. It’s a sign of the times that even a “conservative” outlet is reluctant to expose the shameless promotion of homosexuality in the media. One of the main funders of The Daily Caller is a Christian by the name of Foster Friess.
At the risk of promoting this kind of repulsive “journalism,” it is important to note that The Huffington Post item, Male Full-Frontal Nudity Supercut: Which Stars Have Bared It All?, which appeared in the “gay voices” section, was exactly as I described it—a form of gay porn.
But when Christians get repulsed by this kind of thing and seek to protect their families and children from it, they are singled out as bigots.
Actually, Kincaid should be taking that fact that even his fellow conservatives criticized him as a sign he went too far.
As the Daily Caller pointed out, the articles Kincaid cited to declare HuffPo to be a "gay porn outlet" weren't terribly gay or porn-y, and they didn't include nudity, which one might consider a prerequisite to be called pornography. And while the "Male Full-Frontal Nudity Supercut" does include the promised nudity, male frontal nudity by itself does not constitute pornography, and all of the clips are from major-studio or independent releases, not "gay porn" -- and very few, if any, of the clips involve sexual situations or positions.
Also, Kincaid's claim that the video was "exactly as I described it—a form of gay porn" is dishonest in another way: He simply quoted anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera freaking out about it.
So it's not that the Daily Caller is "reluctant to expose the shameless promotion of homosexuality in the media" -- it's accurately pointing out that the content Kincaid cited isn't particularly gay.
By engaging in such kneejerk, dishonest gay-bashing, Kincaid simply makes himself look like an idiot -- and discredits his employer.
P.S. We pointed out some of this in a comment on Kincaid's article, but the comment was later deleted and we were banned from posting there. Apparently, AIM really doesn't want accuracy in media after all -- and is as intolerant of criticism as Kincaid is.
WND Marks Anniversary of Terri Schiavo's Death With More Bias Topic: WorldNetDaily
With the 10th anniversary of the death of Terri Schiavo, it was inevitable that WorldNetDaily -- which covered the heck out of the Schiavo case -- would mark it somehow. And it does so with a March 30 column by Diana Lynne, WND's main reporter on Schiavo at the time.
Lynne was a highly biased reporter, blatantly taking the side of Schiavo's family, the Schindlers (who didn't want Schiavo, who had been in a persistent vegitative state for about 15 years, to die) and against her husband, Michael (who sought to let Terri die). We actually wrote a letter to WND seeking changes to make it coverage more fair and balanced, which actually did result in a few changes. It may have been the last time WND has taken ConWebWatch's sound jounralistic advice.
Lynne's column is preceded by a self-serving "editor's note": "Diana Lynne is one of two reporters who broke the story of the struggle over Terri Schiavo’s life – both of them with WND. Lynne’s coverage eventually brought the story to the attention of international media." Never mind that very little of that reporting was fairly presented.
In her column, Lynne plays advocate again, lamenting "the killing of an innocent, defenseless, disabled woman who was not suffering from a terminal illness" and blaming the "mainstream media" for its "rampant distortion, bias and misreporting of facts" -- displaying an utter lack of self-awareness of her own rampant distortion, bias and misreporting of facts. She again effectively accuses Michael Schiavo of murder, suggesting that "he was the one who no longer wanted Terri 'to be'" and claim he was aided by "a pro-death, activist attorney whose fees were paid for with the lion’s share of the $750,000 earmarked for Terri’s care."
Lynne's column concludes with a WND plug for her book on the case: "Diana Lynne tells the complete, unvarnished story that led to Terri Schiavo’s court-ordered death – order 'Terri’s Story' to commemorate the 10th anniversary of her passing." As we've documented, Lynne's book is just as biased as her reporting, portraying the Schindlers much more sympathetically than Michael Schiavo and hiding the right-wing interests that financially supported the Schindler family's fight against Michael (which she misleadingly portrayed as "a grass-roots effort") and buried the fact that the Schindlers' spokesmen, Randall Terry and Gary McCullough, are anti-abortion extremists; McCullough served as a media consultant to Paul Hill, who was convicted and executed for the murder of a doctor who performed abortions (and is quoted as saying, "Paul Hill is my friend. No, I won't denounce his actions").
The bias never ends at WND -- even 10 years after the fact.
CNS Managing Editor Is Weirdly Obsessed With Promoting Franklin Graham Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman is quite the fanboy of right-wing evangelist Franklin Graham.
How much so? Since Jan. 1, Chapman has devoted a whopping 25 CNS articles and blog posts to Graham's musings, particularly has anti-Muslim and anti-Obama rantings. That's greater sycophancy that CNS devotes to Mark Levin, and CNS (along with its parent, the Media Research Center) has a business deal with Levin to promote each other that at least somewhat justifies the logrolling.
It also accounts for more than one-third of the 69 total articles Chapman has written since Jan. 1.
Here are how Chapman's fawning stenography of Graham stacks up:
You'd think the managing editor of a website would have better things to do than obsessively clipping a right-wing evangelist -- and a Protestant one at that, presumably much to the chagrin of his uber-Catholic bosses such as Brent Bozell and Terry Jeffrey -- but apparently his job doesn't keep him busy enough.
WND Ignores WND Reporter's Investigation of Cruz's Eligibility Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein tweeted out a preview of his March 29 radio show: "On my radio show TONIGHT 7-9 p.m: Is Sen. Ted Cruz “natural born” and Constitutionally eligible? I'll investigate."
You'd think WND would be quick to pounce on this investigation by one of its reporters by detailing that evidence. But, strangely, it hasn't. No mention of Klein's investigation of Cruz's eligibility ever made it to WND.
WND did, however, publish another article based on Klein's radio show, his interview with Frances Fox Piven, who right-wingers like Klein blame for "the infamous so-called Cloward-Piven Strategy."
Two days after Klein's radio show (which moved downmarket from WABC to a small-wattage station in New York) aired, WND still hasn't mentioned Klein's investigation. It did publish an article by Garth Kant fawning over how much Cruz's politics resembles that of Ronald Reagan.
Meanwhile, Klein himself apparently doesn't want his radio show that well listened to. The podcasts of his show are entombed behind a paywall, and one must pay $4.99 for the privilege of listening to him.
So unless you were actually listening to Klein on Sunday evening, the results of his Cruz investigation are going to be difficult to obtain. Which, given WND's wild enthusiasm for Cruz's presidential candidacy and double standard for eligibility concerns between Cruz and Obama, is presumably just the way WND wants it.
Meet Aryeh Spero, The Jewish Bradlee Dean Topic: CNSNews.com
Rabbi Aryeh Spero is apparently the Jewish Bradlee Dean -- a liar with a severe case of Obama derangement.
That's the impression we get from Spero's March 30 CNSNews.com column, which begins with this load of derangement:
Much has been said about the strange behavior of Barack Obama, who can’t let a day go without maligning Israel and Mr. Netanyahu. In contrast, he displays friendship to a thug and anti-Semite like Erdogan of Turkey, palled around with the deceased communist Hugo Chavez and keeps standing-up for the Iranian mullahs who want to kill us all or make us slaves to Islam.
Spero then rants:
This last week, Barack Obama published classified information showing the world photographs of Israel’s hidden nuclear site, and its inner workings. It was his gift to Iran, Hamas and ISIS. This puts Israel and her citizens, not just Mr. Netanyahu, at great risk.
Actually, as we've detailed, the document in question was not "published" by Obama but, rather, released as part of a Freedom of Information Act request only after a longfight by the Defense Department and only after clearing it with Israel first.
Spero then advances to out-and-out lying:
During a meeting at the White House in 2009, Obama stated early-on that “it’s time to put day-light between Israel and America.” This was done before Obama had even met Benjamin Netanyahu.
We couldn't find any news report where Obama is directly quoted as saying, "it’s time to put day-light between Israel and America," which means Spero made it up. It's apparently based on a statement Obama reportedly made:
"Look at the past eight years," he said, referring to the George W. Bush administration's relationship with Israel. "During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states."
An Obama aide said that "The case he was trying to make was that the United States will be a better partner to Israel if it has more credibility with the Arab states, that we will be a better, more useful friend to Israel if we have more friends in the Arab world."
Spero claims that Obama "had his young underlings call Israel a “racist” state," but he offers no example of this. Spero apparently missed Netanyahu's racist appeal to his supporters in the recent election by warning that Arabs were "voting in droves."
Spero also claims that Obama "has taken Hezbollah and Iran off our list of terror organizations," which, again, never happened.
Spero tells another lie: "He prohibited flights to Israel for almost two days during her recent defensive war against Hamas missiles being shot from Gaza. He has not done this in other war zones." In fact, at the time of that prohibition -- made by the Federal Aviation Administration, not Obama -- U.S. aircraft were prohibited from flying over six other areas in the world.
Then, it was time for more Obama derangement:
Obama’s inner identity is tied to Islam. We all identify with the ethos of our formative years. His father and step-father were Islamic, as is his family back in Kenya and Indonesia. His brothers are active Islamists. He was raised on the Koran in Islamic countries, he attended Islamic madrassa, and he grew up with its attitudes, sights and sounds, aspirations and narrative, likes and dislikes. As I grew-up to favor Israel, he grew-up to dislike it. Simple as that. Most of my Christian friends, Bible believers, were also raised with the biblical narrative, which admires Israel’s place in our theology and in the cosmos.
The Marxism Obama was fed, from very early-on, made him viscerally dislike successful western countries, such as America, Israel, and Britain. He was taught they were colonizers and imperialist. Yet, he finds nothing imperialistic or colonizing about Islam’s takeover, throughout the centuries, of northern and central Africa, Lebanon, Babylon and Persian, the Balkans, the Mediterranean areas, Malaysia, Indonesia and other parts of Asia, vast tracks of what was India, and countless Christian and Hindu neighborhoods and cities. Not to see colonialism and imperialism in these conquests, tells us a lot about Obama’s perspective. Love is blind. We don’t see flaws in that and those we love. But, we sure see them, always, in that which we dislike. Obama’s dislike for a strong, independent, proud Jewish renaissance in the Holy Land predates Netanyahu. As with America, the next two years will be difficult, for Obama has set his antagonistic sights on America and Israel … as well as its citizens. Obama has spent the last 50 years waiting for these next two.
Apparently, CNS does not fact-check what its columnists write; otherwise, this would have never been published. Is CNS trying to become WorldNetDaily, which publishes Bradlee Dean?
WND's Farah Tells Lies In Order to Claim Obama Is 'Anti-Semitic' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is a liar; it's whathedoes. So it's no surprise that Farah's March 29 WND column attacking President Obama over his purported stance on Israel is yet another pack of lies.
The column begins with an ominous-sounding editor's note: "Joseph Farah wrote this column before the Obama administration betrayed Israel in the most shocking way by revealing classified information about its nuclear program." In fact, as Media Matters documents, the declassifed 1987 document in question was released only after the Department of Defense spent years fighting its release -- due to a Freedom of Information Act request, not from any demand from Obama -- and the Washington Examiner reports that the Pentagon asked Israel to review the document before releasing it.Media Matters also noted that the Bush administration released information about Israel's nuclear program, and we don't recall Farah getting bent out of shape over that.
In the column proper, Farah listed things he claimed prove Barack Obama's (remember, Farah doesn't consider Obama to be the president) "latent anti-Semitism," and he piles up more lies:
-- "Obama used taxpayer money, his own political operatives and a nonprofit front group to interfere in the recent Israeli election, specifically with the intent of toppling Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister." As we've documented, none of the evidence WND's Aaron Klein compiled actually prove any of that happened as Farah describes, and Klein's focus on former Obama operatives working for the opposition ignores the fact that Republican operatives were working for Netanyahu's campaign.
-- "Obama’s anti-Israel bent has been palpable since his first full day in office – Jan. 21, 2009 – when he gathered his new national-security team in the Oval Office and laid out a tough new policy toward Israel. ... Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously told Abe Foxman in a private meeting: 'This is Israel’s moment of truth. This president is determined to make peace between Israel and the Arabs.'" Funny, this sounds almost exactly -- like, almost to the word -- what noted Obama-hater and fabulist Ed Klein wrote in his book "The Amateur":
he Jewish problem with Obama can be traced back to his first full day on the job. On January 21, 2009, he summoned his national security team to the Oval Office and laid out a tough new policy toward Israel.
However, a clue to the president’s true intentions came in March 2009, when Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, met with the president’s then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
“This is Israel’s moment of truth,” Emanuel told Foxman. “This President is determined to make peace between Israel and the Arabs.”
For this example, Farah is actually less of a liar and more of a plagiarist.
-- "Then came Obama’s even more famous call for a return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders – which more accurately should be termed 'Auschwitz borders.'" In fact, Obama said negotiations over a Palestinian state should start with the 1967 borders, not end there -- which has been the starting point for the past several presidents.
Farah harrumphed at the end of his column: "He looks like an anti-Semite. He walks like an anti-Semite. And he talks like an anti-Semite. I am forced to conclude there’s a malignant anti-Semite in the White House. It’s time for Jews who have been reflexively supporting him for too long to see if for themselves."
Meanwhile, we are forced to conclude that a malignant liar runs WND. No wonder nobody believes them.