WorldNetDaily

Frank Gaffney: Muslim Congressman Part Of 'Islamic Fifth Column'

Frank Gaffney thinks that Rep. André Carson, one of two Muslim members of Congress, should lose his seat on the House Intelligence Committee because he might hand classified information to Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist who leads the Center for Security Policy, told WorldNetDaily that Carson, an Indiana Democrat, may use his position to advance “the imposition of Shariah worldwide and the establishment of a caliphate.”

Gaffney bases his claims on Carson’s work with the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleging that the groups were “unindicted co-conspirator[s] in a terror-financing trial.” Actually, the designations were removed due to lack of evidence.

“At a minimum, Rep. Andre Carson’s presence on the House Intelligence Committee will necessitate restrictions on his access to classified information about the presence and operations in this country of what amounts to a subversive Islamist Fifth Column and his participation in the panel’s deliberations concerning how it can best be countered,” Gaffney told WND.

“Since there are, at the moment, few topics more in need of assiduous oversight by the Congress – even if there were no actual risk of compromise of national security secrets or Muslim Brotherhood influence operations associated with Rep. Carson’s presence on the House Intelligence Committee – the potential impediment he may constitute to such work demands his removal from this panel.”



“Given the Muslim Brotherhood’s unalterable commitment to Islamic supremacism,” Gaffney said, “the imposition of Shariah worldwide and the establishment of a caliphate to rule globally in accordance with that totalitarian program – in place of our constitutional republic and all other forms of government, what the Obama administration is doing is bad enough. Its serial efforts to engage, legitimate, fund, arm and otherwise empower the Brotherhood overseas and to rely upon the Brothers’ domestic front organizations as representatives of and outreach vehicles to the Muslim community in this country are intensifying the dangers we face from the Global Jihad Movement.”

Gaffney said it is “wholly unacceptable to have as a member of a key congressional committee charged with overseeing U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence an individual with extensive personal and political associations with the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihadist infrastructure in America.”

“At a minimum, Rep. Andre Carson’s presence on the House Intelligence Committee will necessitate restrictions on his access to classified information about the presence and operations in this country of what amounts to a subversive Islamist Fifth Column and his participation in the panel’s deliberations concerning how it can best be countered.”

WorldNetDaily Continues Effort To Expose 'Fairy' Obama's Gay Secret

WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie says he is deeply troubled that one of his friends criticized his use of the word “fairy” to describe President Obama, a criticism which Massie is treating as a grave attack on his freedom of speech.

But rest assured, Massie tells readers that he will never “accept that my using the words such as ‘fairy, niggardly, heathen, pagan,’ ad nauseum [sic] are injurious to homosexuals, blacks and Muslims.”

Massie adds that the same friend who rebuked his choice of words also has “information” that Obama “remains a closet homosexual using family as his ‘beard.’”

WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi has also repeatedly suggested that the president is secretly gay.

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.

Highfield was attempting to silence any potential criticism and/or rejection of her chosen lifestyle in the same way Muslims attempt to detract attention away from their passive acceptance of the horrors inflicted the world over by those claiming allegiance to their so-called religion. It is also the weapon used to intimidate and silence criticism of Obama.

...

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.

...

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.

David Barton: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's SOTU Nap Was An Impeachable Offense

David Barton is outraged that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg nodded off during the State of the Union address last month, which Ginsburg attributed to the “very fine California wine” that Justice Anthony Kennedy had shared at dinner that evening.

Barton writes in a WorldNetDaily column today that while he isn’t personally “calling for the removal of Ginsburg for her recent faux pas,” Justice Ginsburg’s nap represented bad behavior and disrespect to the U.S. Constitution, both offenses warranting impeachment and removal from office.

You may recall pictures of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sitting on the front row in the House Chamber sleeping during President Obama’s State of the Union Address. News recently broke explaining why: “I wasn’t 100 percent sober.”

A State of the Union message is a constitutionally mandated duty (Article II, Section 3), and for those who respect the Constitution, this address is serious stuff. But apparently not to Justice Ginsburg – which probably is not surprising given that her rulings routinely reflect a general dismissal of the Constitution and that she publicly advises leaders in other nations to seek something better than the U. S. Constitution for their country.

Regardless, it is certain that public intoxication by a Supreme Court justice does not inspire faith in the Judiciary. Luther Martin (one of the 55 delegates who framed the U. S. Constitution) warned: “It is necessary that the supreme judiciary should have the confidence of the people,” and to ensure this, the founders made certain that the federal bench could be ridded of those who embarrassed or misused it.

Citizens today might be dubious of such a statement, for we have long been told (and wrongly so) that federal judges have lifetime appointments. They do not – and it was the Founding Fathers themselves who specifically stipulated that federal judges could serve only for the duration of “good behavior” (Article III, Section 1). So as long as a judge acted right, he could stay on the bench, but if he acted otherwise, he could be removed. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of, much less guarantee for, lifetime appointments for judges.

The first federal judge to be removed from the bench came at the behest of President Thomas Jefferson. That judge, John Pickering, was no obscure lightweight. Originally placed on the federal bench by President George Washington, Pickering had been a framer of the New Hampshire Constitution, served as the state’s governor, was selected as a delegate to frame the U.S. Constitution (but declined) and was subsequently a ratifier of the federal Constitution. So why was he removed? Among the reasons given was public intoxication (as well as a public disrespect for God). The Founding Fathers considered this to be bad behavior for a judge.

Don’t think I am calling for the removal of Ginsburg for her recent faux pas. Rather, I am pointing out that the current notion that federal judges are unaccountable because they have lifetime appointments is one of the greatest lies of our lifetime.



If America ever again expects the federal courts to be just one of three so-called “co-equal” branches rather than the supreme branch they have become, then we must recover the notion that our federal judges are not unaccountable demigods.

Gohmert: Apathetic Americans Letting Obama Turn US Into 'Totalitarian, Dictatorial Type Country'

Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told WorldNetDaily’s Radio America this weekend that he’s heard people in America say that “maybe we just need a good, caring dictator,” and that it’s this kind of apathetic attitude that’s allowing President Obama to turn the country into “a totalitarian, dictatorial type country” through things like his executive actions on immigration.

“Unfortunately, when you have 50 percent of the American people who are saying, ‘Hey, we’re okay with not having checks and balances in our government,’ it’s a way you lose a country,” he warned.

“If we allow the president to continue this kind of lawlessness, there will not be a republic, we’ll be morphing over into more of a totalitarian, dictatorial type country,” he added. “And that’s what normally happens when you have a representative form of government, people get apathetic and forget to notice the things that kept it representative, and people start saying what I’ve heard people in America say: ‘Well, maybe we just need a good, caring dictator to clean things up and then we can go back to a democracy.’”

Fox News Pundit: Islamists Might Be 'Embedded In The White House'

Fox News contributor Thomas McInerney appeared on WorldNetDaily's Radio America yesterday, where he condemned the White House’s statement on the beheading of 21Egyptian Christians in Libya.

Angry that the statement didn't specifically mention that the victims were Christian, McInerney told host Greg Corombos that "maybe we have some Islamists embedded in the White House."

In an interview last year, McInerney called Obama a treasonous leader ​who is "helping Al Qaeda" and "helping ISIS."

WND Pundit: Gay Marriage Support Further Proof Obama Is A 'Crypto-Muslim'

Pouncing on David Axelrod’s recent claim that President Obama hid his support for same-sex marriage during the 2008 presidential campaign, Jack Cashill of WorldNetDaily wonders today about what else the president is hiding…perhaps, his secret Muslim faith?

Cashill writes today in a column titled “Barry’s Stunning Bit of Blasphemy” that Axelrod’s “revelation casts further doubt upon Obama’s professed Christianity and fuels the speculation that he might well be a crypto-Muslim.”

Cashill points to a Jamie Foxx joke as further proof that while Obama may be “a secret Muslim,” “even Allah must take a seat in the back pews of the Church of Obama.”

For Obama, lying about his faith was apparently no big deal. As he told Axelrod after stumbling through a question on same-sex marriage, “I’m just not very good at bulls––ing.”

One has to ask, if Obama was willing to bulls–- about his relationship with God, what was he not willing to bulls–- about? Why should anyone, for instance, believe his “for me as a Christian” line?

The Axelrod revelation casts further doubt upon Obama’s professed Christianity and fuels the speculation that he might well be a crypto-Muslim.

Obama did little to shore up his Christian credentials in comparing ISIS to the Crusades at least week’s much discussed National Prayer Breakfast.



“It’s like church in here,” actor Jamie Foxx said at the 2012 Soul Train Awards. “First of all, give an honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama.”

Obama could not have said it better himself. If he really is a secret Muslim, I suspect even Allah must take a seat in the back pews of the Church of Obama.

Linda Harvey: This Valentine's Day, Fight Against LGBT Rights

Mission America’s Linda Harvey is urging conservatives to use Valentine’s Day to “promote true love,” which, as she explains in a WorldNetDaily column today, means opposing LGBT rights. She urges readers to mark the holiday by demanding that companies drop their support for LGBT equality and posting “an online comment challenging notions of homosexuality as ‘marriage’ or anti-Christian bigotry.”

“Don’t be afraid to say, ‘Not true!’ when some maintain that sodomy and abortion are the high ground, as is same-sex ‘marriage,’ that children should be encouraged to change genders, that Americans are all racists and that Christianity is hateful,” she writes.

Harvey also tells readers to oppose “vicious feminists” and schools that teach “anti-American, pro-Marxist lessons.”

The leftists love Valentine’s Day. This year, they will exhibit a bizarre preoccupation with the movie “Fifty Shades of Grey,” as America’s notion of “love” is stretched to unrecognizable limits.

But as Christians, we think of love in a different sense. It’s one that “does not rejoice in inquity, but rejoices in the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:6)

So what can Christians do in 2015 to promote true love?

Despite some disturbing, jaw-dropping events of the past year, and some daunting ones in the coming months, we really aren’t at the mercy of cowardly Republicans, destructive Democrats, vicious feminists and homosexual bullies.

While designers of wickedness present great challenges to American culture, to freedom and to the rule of law, let’s never forget that those who hate godliness are in self-destruction mode.

While we pray for any individuals who can be pulled out of the coming fire, let’s lovingly assist the unworthy causes they espouse toward a sure demise.



The loony left does not represent America, and their ideas are mostly poison. Let me make it clear: I am not advocating civil unrest or violence here (like liberals sometimes do), but in the public square of reasonable debate over public policy, don’t let unhinged voices get away with calculated deception, obfuscation and other evil nonsense. Expose mythology for what it is.

Don’t be afraid to say, “Not true!” when some maintain that sodomy and abortion are the high ground, as is same-sex “marriage,” that children should be encouraged to change genders, that Americans are all racists and that Christianity is hateful. Get ready to say NO and shine the light of reality back at them.

So, how do we do this? Start with fervent and persistent prayer. Then, commit to at least one “push back” activity each week. Make one phone call to a corporate supporter of “LGBT” deviance, or send one email to a pro-abortion politician. Make an online comment challenging notions of homosexuality as “marriage” or anti-Christian bigotry. Be sure to call your child’s school and object to anti-American, pro-Marxist lessons.

Here’s a good place to start: the erroneously named “Corporate Equality Index” of the Human Rights Campaign. This pedophile-founded, multi-million dollar homosexual lobbying group is a pretender to high-minded notions of “equality” and “non-discrimination.” HRC is a vicious bully with an empire built on attacking personal sexual integrity, undermining authentic families, promoting deviance and mischaracterizing Christians.

So consult this listing of businesses that have signed on to HRC’s “gay” agenda, and make a call to one each week. Just ask: “Why is your company supporting the harmful homosexual agenda? Why are you donating to advance same sex ‘marriage’? No one needs to be homosexual, and no one is born in the wrong sex body. It’s a mistake for your company, wrong for your employees and for America.”

WND Pundit 'Exposes' The Obamacare-ISIS Plot

Right-wing activist Bradlee Dean is pretty sure that United States intelligence services started Al Qaeda and even trained ISIS fighters, a theory that he lays out in WorldNetDaily today.

Demanding to know why President Obama is “aiding and abetting America’s enemies,” Dean claims that Obamacare is really just a sly way for the president to distract Americans from the growth of ISIS and his surreptitious work to assist terrorist groups like ISIS, take away Americans’ guns and advance the New World Order.

Dean approvingly cites Pierre-Henri Bunel, a 9/11 truther, to make his point.

I realize that these Islamists are making hundreds of millions through their takeover of Iraqi oil operations, cleaned out Iraqi banks in territories they have control of and have even been funded and trained by the U.S. government. However, I have to ask why the surrounding governments are not squashing these barbaric devils. Furthermore, why is our own government providing the means to empower them while asking us, those they serve, to relinquish our rights to more government control?

ISIS seems to be taking it to a new level of barbarism, due to the fact that beheading men, women and children seems to have very little effect on the American people. These Islamic devils seem to have forgotten that it is the American people who have allowed their own government to sanction the beheading and dismemberment of over 58 million of its own babies in the womb. For this reason, they must come up with a more barbaric method of getting their enemies to submit to their regime (Proverbs 6:16).

So, in changing their tactics, ISIS decides to set a man on fire and then puts the barbaric crime in front of the faces of the world to see.

Why is the response from the president to push Obamacare on the people in this country?

Remember, the message from ISIS to you is “Submit or else.” In fact, Islam means “submission.” So contrary to the claims of Barack Hussein Obama and the other deceivers in Washington, ISIS is, in fact, Islamic to the core.

Who is ISIS? Who is al-Qaida? Who are America’s enemies? Who is creating all of this chaos? Who does this work for?

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who mysteriously died of a heart attack, told the House of Commons that al-Qaida is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.

In addition, former French military intelligence agent Pierre-Henry Bunel wrote in the April/June 2004 edition of World Affairs:

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called al-Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the U.S., and the lobbyists for the U.S. war on terrorism are only interested in making money.”

Why are world leaders calling for a “New World Order” at the same time?

Why was Barack Hussein Obama calling for a “New World Order” in Europe before becoming America’s president, claiming that there was “no other way”?

Why is he now meeting with designated Muslim terror groups in the White House? Why is he allied with America’s sworn enemies by appointing them to key positions in governmental positions? Why is he aiding and abetting America’s enemies? Why is he trying to disarm the American people through means of terror? Why is he releasing thousands of illegal felons on the streets of America? Why has he transgressed the U.S. Constitution, lied to the American people, wasted taxpayer money and been involved in cronyism in 900 documented incidents?

Alan Keyes: Gay Marriage Will Lead To The 'Dissolution Of The United States'

Alan Keyes, the Religious Right icon who thinks that marriage equality will lead to Nazi-style tyranny and “the murder of the masses,” took to WorldNetDaily today with a lengthy column on the dangers of gay marriage. In fact, the column is so long that readers are redirected to Keyes’ personal website to read the second half of it.

According to Keyes, a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality “could very well be as momentous as the Dred Scott decision in the 19th century, and just as fraught with potentially fatal implications for the future Liberty and Union of the people of the United States.”

After arguing that same-sex marriages are unconstitutional because such relationships will not lead to procreation and therefore contribute nothing to society, Keyes writes that there is no right to marry. In fact, same-sex marriage, according to Keyes, represents a “humanly fabricated right” that undermines “the unalienable right essential for the natural conception and perpetuation of humanity itself.”

All in all, Keyes concludes that a pro-gay-rights ruling from the Supreme Court will be a reason for a new revolution and civil war.

“This would be an attack on the people of the United States more grievous than that which led the first generation of Americans to declare their independence from Great Britain,” he writes. “If even a significant minority of Americans continue in their attachment to the unalienable right of liberty (as opposed to the licentious freedom that has, in some quarters usurped that name) this attack is likely to produce the separation and dissolution of the United States, for like humanity itself the United States is inconceivable apart from respect for God-endowed unalienable right.”

Over the past several years, I’ve written quite a few articles on the subject of the so-called “right” asserted in respect of “gay marriage. So it is only after much thought that I venture to say that the Supreme Court’s decisions could very well be as momentous as the Dred Scott decision in the 19th century, and just as fraught with potentially fatal implications for the future Liberty and Union of the people of the United States. Many Americans feel that this is so. But when it comes to constitutional law, our feelings cannot be the crux of the matter. Rather we must rely, as the young Abraham Lincoln once said, on “Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason.”



This observation is not only directly relevant to any Constitutional judgment, it is, by the plain language of the Constitution itself, unmistakably conclusive. For the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution plainly states that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This language may or may not apply to certain rights under human law (like, for example, the “right” to own slaves in Virginia at the time the Constitution was adopted) but it certainly applies to any and all “unalienable” rights, since they are an aspect of natural law without which the “human” in “human law” would have no distinctive significance.

The way in which this bears upon the issue of so-called “homosexual marriage” is plainly obvious. Whatever else it may or may not be, homosexuality is not an activity inseparable from the concept of humanity itself. On the other hand, marriage between a man and a woman (especially in the true and natural sense of the union of their identities in the child conceived by their commingled information) is not only necessary for the existence of particular human individuals, it is also and especially necessary for preserving the existence of humanity as such.

In this respect, marriage is not a matter of freedom, but of obligation. It goes beyond the tie between particular men and women to encompass the tie between the existence of humanity as a whole and the activity of each and every human being actually capable of procreation. This intersection of the particular and general good is precisely the sphere that calls for the sovereign to exercise the power of civil government. By nature individuals are inclined instinctively to care for themselves and their loved ones. But to care for the general good of all is one of the defining elements of sovereignty. True justice does so with proper regard for each individual’s God endowed responsibility and capacity for right action, but never acts without regard for the common good that each and all are obliged to respect and serve.

This is the main reason the civil institution of marriage exists in the first place. These days people pretend that serving the good of the whole (.e.g, environmental stewardship) and respecting the good of each individual is an either/or proposition. But as endowed by the Creator, the marriage right is the paradigmatic example of just action that serves the whole while care for each individual as a distinctive and particular whole.

But in respect of the premise of unalienable rights, the Constitution makes it plain that this mutual service to humanity takes precedence over subsequent determinations of right in human law.

Whatever this means for the practice of homosexuality without reference to marriage, it certainly means that no humanly fabricated right can be allowed to deny or disparage the unalienable right essential for the natural conception and perpetuation of humanity itself. Such denigration of antecedent unalienable right would not only be unconstitutional, it would explicitly contravene the aim (to secure unalienable rights) for which all governments are instituted in the first place.

This would be an attack on the people of the United States more grievous than that which led the first generation of Americans to declare their independence from Great Britain. If even a significant minority of Americans continue in their attachment to the unalienable right of liberty (as opposed to the licentious freedom that has, in some quarters usurped that name) this attack is likely to produce the separation and dissolution of the United States, for like humanity itself the United States is inconceivable apart from respect for God-endowed unalienable right.

Fox Host: Vaccine Mandates Will Destroy The Constitution, Declaration Of Independence

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano defended Sen. Rand Paul’s recent remarks on vaccinations in his WorldNetDaily column today, writing that proponents of vaccination mandates want the government to “own our bodies” and create a society much “like Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel ‘1984.’”

“[I]f the government owns our bodies, then the presumption of individual liberty guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has been surreptitiously discarded, and there will be no limit to what the government can compel us to do or to what it can extract from us – in the name of science or any other of its modern-day gods,” he said, warning against giving power to “Big Government politicians” who seek to intervene in all realms of society.

The science is overwhelming that vaccinations work for most children most of the time. Paul, who is a physician, said, however, he knew of instances in which poorly timed vaccinations had led to mental disorders. Yet, he was wise enough to make the pro-freedom case, and he made it stronger than Christie did.

To Paul, the issue is not science. That’s because in a free society, we are free to reject scientific orthodoxy and seek unorthodox scientific cures. Of course, we do that at our peril if our rejection of truth and selection of alternatives results in harm to others.

The issue, according to Paul, is: WHO OWNS YOUR BODY? This is a question the government does not want to answer truthfully, because if it does, it will sound like Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel “1984.” That’s because the government believes it owns your body.



What do the states have to do with this? Under our Constitution, the states, and not the federal government, are the guardians of public health. That is an area of governance not delegated by the states to the feds. Of course, you’d never know this to listen to the debate today in which Big Government politicians, confident in the science, want a one-size-fits-all regimen.

No less a champion of government in your face than Hillary Clinton jumped into this debate with a whacky Tweet that argued that because the Earth is round and the sky is blue and science is right, all kids should be vaccinated. What she was really saying is that in her progressive worldview, the coercive power of the federal government can be used to enforce a scientific orthodoxy upon those states and individuals who intellectually reject it.



Paul’s poignant question about who owns your body – and he would be the first to tell you that this is not a federal issue – cannot be ignored by Christie or Clinton or any other presidential candidate. If Paul is right, if we do own our bodies and if we are the custodians of our children’s bodies until they reach maturity, then we have the right to make health-care choices free from government interference, even if our choices are grounded in philosophy or religion or emotion or alternative science.

But if Paul is wrong, if the government owns our bodies, then the presumption of individual liberty guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution has been surreptitiously discarded, and there will be no limit to what the government can compel us to do or to what it can extract from us – in the name of science or any other of its modern-day gods.

Erik Rush: Obama Administration Committed 'Hanging Offenses'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush is repeating his call for top government officials to be punished with prison and hanging for treason, writing today that President Obama “has become the chief facilitator of Islamist terror on a global scale” and “had a hand in orchestrating the Benghazi attack.”

Upset that not enough people believe that “the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama” is on a mission to “destroy America,” Rush writes that both Democrats and Republicans are running “interference for both the degenerate white-robed sultans and sheiks in the Sunni Muslim world, the black-dress-wearing Shiite mullahs in Iran, as well as the smug, insubstantial usurper in the White House.”

“Hanging offenses have been committed by people in high places,” Rush adds.

It’s not that President Obama can’t utter the phrase “Islamist terror,” it is that he won’t do so, because at this juncture, Obama has become the chief facilitator of Islamist terror on a global scale.

For the record, I have been personally assured by intelligence operatives from the U.S. and Britain, both past and present, that they and other foreign intelligence organizations are “well aware” of who the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama actually is, the parties who orchestrated his rise to power and that his mission is nothing less than to “bring America down.”

As all indicators reveal, this is precisely what he has been doing, despite the wholesale misrepresentations of the administration and the American press. Intelligence groups from outside the U.S. have approached American media representatives with information concerning Obama’s origins and designs; whether their reticence to engage is due to fear, having been compromised, or ideological affinity is anyone’s guess, but they won’t touch it.



Rep. Trey Gowdy charged two weeks ago that the Obama administration is purposely slowing a congressional inquiry into the deadly 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya. It has also been reported that Gowdy is enduring White House intimidation over his pursuit of the investigation. Evidence suggests it is altogether likely that the White House had a hand in orchestrating the Benghazi attack, rather than merely failing to provide adequate military support in time to prevent casualties.



Among the most prominent – and probably most compromised of the aforementioned GOP power players – would be the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee in Intelligence at the time, former Rep. Mike Rogers. In 2011, Rogers’ wife, Kristi Rogers, was on the board of directors of a company that was ultimately responsible for outsourcing security at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound. Mike Rogers subsequently and inexplicably stonewalled and obfuscated during House hearings on Benghazi, to the consternation of Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike.

It is said that America’s “ruling class” (as detailed in “the writings of Angelo M. Codevilla) always close ranks to protect their own. It has become tragically apparent that in order to protect their filthy little political fiefdoms, these parties have determined that they must run interference for both the degenerate white-robed sultans and sheiks in the Sunni Muslim world, the black-dress-wearing Shiite mullahs in Iran, as well as the smug, insubstantial usurper in the White House. The common denominator among these is only that little trifle of their intention to destroy America.

This has gone far beyond dishonesty, disloyalty, or even self-aggrandizing corruption. Hanging offenses have been committed by people in high places; the list of such offenses increases daily, as does the number of those who add themselves to the list of the culpable, or dig themselves in deeper with each diversion they craft and lie they utter.

Pat Boone Thinks Obama Will 'Release All Murderers'

Musician and conservative activist Pat Boone took to WorldNetDaily today with an incendiary column titled “Obama’s Willie Horton plan: Release all murderers,” in which he criticizes President Obama’s goal of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Likening Obama’s plan to the Massachusetts furlough program that critics said was responsible for Horton’s crime spree, Boone said Obama might begin “emptying and shutting down all our prisons and just let all the offenders be released back into society.”

“He and his administration are already doing that – deporting criminal illegal aliens, and then allowing them to come right back in to commit more crimes,” Boone added, wondering if the Obama administration's policies will lead to “a mass invasion by illegal aliens, including near certain terrorists with plans for future 9/11 style attacks in our own cities?”

All of this, Boone said, is meant to turn America “into a virtual socialist, if not outright communist, society.”

What’s it going to take, America, for us collectively to wake up and see the obvious – that we’re being taken off the rails by a mad conductor?

This is the 50th anniversary of the film “Doctor Strangelove.” Ironic, if not prescient. This frighteningly successful film depicts a U.S. government and military buying into false information and launching a devastating atomic attack on Russia, in what is intended to be a first strike deterrent of a suspected attack, which proved early to be inaccurate. But in the end, all attempts to recall or stop the atomic attack failed, and the film ends with crazed Colonel “King” Kong straddling the bomb as it falls from the bomb bay and hurtles toward the catastrophic explosion and the pollution of the whole earth’s atmosphere.

Fantastic fiction? Sure. Couldn’t happen in today’s world? Not so sure.

There’s a different scenario unfolding in this country we love, right before our eyes, and we’re reading about it in the daily papers and seeing it on the nightly news broadcasts. What if our elected leadership had decided America no longer deserved to be leader of the free world, should have its military and its programs reduced to ineffectual status, our vibrant economy bankrupted, and that our republic should be “fundamentally transformed” into a virtual socialist, if not outright communist, society?

What if the elected president and his attorney general, both sworn to defend the Constitution and the security of the United States, decided – even made public statements – that they would not defend the laws concerning our borders and a mass invasion by illegal aliens, including near certain terrorists with plans for future 9/11 style attacks in our own cities?



I’m not making this up, and it’s not a Stanley Kubrick screenplay. It’s the “man with the phone and pen” using his “executive authority” with abandon and disdain for Congress, the Constitution and his own oath to defend our country.



Will he just sovereignly declare, like a 21st century “Doctor Strangelove,” that while he raises our national debt to over $18 trillion, we can “save money” by emptying and shutting down all our prisons and just let all the offenders be released back into society? He and his administration are already doing that – deporting criminal illegal aliens, and then allowing them to come right back in to commit more crimes. And so far, Congress seems befuddled about what to do.

Benghazi Truther Group Admits It Has 'No Evidence' For Its Conspiracy Theory

Two years ago, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared before a Senate panel investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack, Sen. Rand Paul quizzed her about a report, which first emerged on the conspiracy theory outlet WorldNetDaily, alleging that the U.S. was secretly transferring arms from Libya to Syrian rebels through Turkey. Paul admitted at the time that he did not “have any proof” to back up his claims, and a Republican-led House committee later debunked the theory.

Not having any evidence hasn’t stopped Benghazi conspiracy theorists before, and it isn’t stopping them now.

Today, Tom Fitton, president of the right-wing group Judicial Watch, spoke with WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi — best known for spreading bizarre rumors about Obama’s birth certificate and secret gay life and passing them off as journalism — about another conspiracy theory that his group has cooked up about the Benghazi attack.

Fitton alleges that the Obama administration wanted Ambassador Chris Stevens to get kidnapped so they could then release Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian Islamist convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, in return for Stevens’ freedom.

What proof does Judicial Watch have? Like Sen. Rand Paul, Fitton freely admitted that his group has “no evidence” at all, besides claims made by other Benghazi conspiracy theorists.

Did the Obama administration plan to allow a U.S. ambassador to be kidnapped to set up a prisoner-exchange scenario that would provide a pretext for releasing the “Blind Sheik” imprisoned for plotting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?

That’s one of the provocative explanations for the administration’s puzzling actions before, during and after the Benghazi attack that has prompted an investigation by the Washington, D.C.-watchdog Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told WND Tuesday his group is preparing to take legal steps to force government disclosure of documents pertaining to plans the Obama administration had to release “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is serving a life sentence at the Butner Federal Correction Institution in North Carolina.

“Given what we know now, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the terrorist attack on Benghazi could have been a kidnapping attempt aimed at releasing the Blind Sheik,” Fitton said.

He noted, however, there is “no evidence” that the Obama administration may have been complicit in any kidnapping plot related to the Benghazi attack.

Benghazi Truthers Turn On House Special Committee, Accuse Trey Gowdy Of Aiding 'Continued Cover-Up'

After every official committee and panel investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack, including ones led by Republicans, debunked the many right-wing conspiracy theories surrounding the incident, conservative activists demanded that the House GOP establish a new special committee to look into the attack, hoping that the group, led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., would finally confirm their suspicions of foul play by the Obama administration.

Now, it seems, even the House Special Committee on Benghazi is part of the cover-up! At least that is what the ultraconservative outlet WorldNetDaily, a source of many false Benghazi claimsincluding one picked up by Sen. Rand Paul, is reporting. WND spoke to members of the far-right Citizens Committee on Benghazi, who expressed anger with the way Gowdy is handling the proceedings, including one who said that Gowdy is part of the “continued cover-up”:

The military commanders on the Citizens Committee on Benghazi reacted with skepticism to the announcement Thursday afternoon that the House Select Committee on Benghazi has scheduled a hearing, contending the congressional panel led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is not uncovering the truth behind the deadly episode that resulted in the death of an American ambassador.



Retired U.S Navy Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, a founding member of the citizens’ commission – which WND reported has been conducting its own investigation for the past year and a half to ensure Congress uncovers the truth – said the “idea that government agency stonewalling continuing now for over two years is the reason Gowdy’s committee can’t make progress is pure nonsense.”

Lyons, a former four-star admiral who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said he was speaking for himself, not on behalf of the commission.

“Let’s say it clearly,” he told WND. “This is a continued cover-up. You have to take the wraps off and you have to go for the jugular. Is Gowdy so incapable and ineffective that he can’t boss these agency heads to comply with Congress’ mandate? Is he that ineffective?”



Lyons, meanwhile, compared the situation to a subordinate military commander coming to him during a military engagement with the enemy and complaining that an important objective could not be taken because enemy resistance was too stiff.

“I’d tell that subordinate commander to make sure the door didn’t hit him in the rear on the way out,” Lyons said. “The conclusion I’d come to is that I’d say, ‘You’re relieved,’ and I would find somebody that could break through.”

He said that if Gowdy “isn’t the man for the job because he’s being thwarted by some government bureaucrat that stonewalls Congress, then maybe we were wrong to be enthusiastic about Gowdy in the first place.”



Roger Aronoff, editor of Accuracy in Media and another CCB founding member, expressed similar concerns.

“Gowdy has subpoena powers,” Aronoff noted. “So, why doesn’t Gowdy subpoena Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice to testify before the select committee in person? I guess it’s a positive sign that we learn Gowdy and the select committee staff have been meeting with State Department recently, but if nothing comes of it, then it’s obviously for naught.

“Gowdy needs to be aggressive and the select committee needs to get this job done,” he said.

Erik Rush: Every Single Muslim Backs Terrorism, Hopes To Destroy Western Civilization

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush, who last year called for all Muslims to be killed in response to the Boston Marathon bombing, writes today that every single Muslim on the planet is part of a grand plan to bring an end to Western civilization.

Insisting that there is no “distinction that exists between Islam and ‘radical Islam,’” Rush claims that “all Muslims are part of this diabolical design of supplanting Western civilization with an Islamic one” through the “violent subjugation of the host culture.” Terrorists who cite Islamic beliefs, according to Rush, “are not ‘radical’ jihadi commandos; they’re just Muslims,” while the majority of Muslims “advocate what the full-blown jihadis are doing.”

Naturally, Rush believes that President Obama is helping in this grand Muslim conspiracy to destroy the West through immigration, terrorist attacks and “Muslim-fomented civil unrest” by “furiously importing Muslims into the U.S.”

No sooner had reports of the horrific attack on the office of the Paris satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by Islamist commandos coalesced last week, than politicians and media talking heads began qualifying their accounts with liberal use of phraseology intended to obscure the fact that these mass murderers were Muslims. In some cases, these parties do not wish to be labeled “Islamophobic.” In other cases, they are deluding themselves in there being some operative distinction that exists between Islam and “radical Islam.”

Islam has a 1,400-year history of not playing well with others – of executing the same methodology in subjugating nations across the globe as they are currently executing in the West. I believe that there are many people of good conscience who deny the truth about Islam because if they acknowledged it, they would have to accept remedies to the threat that would be distasteful to them.

The truth? Considering the character of Islam at its core, all Muslims are part of this diabolical design of supplanting Western civilization with an Islamic one, indeed, whether they believe it or not. Few may become full-blown jihadis, but rest assured that most of them advocate what the full-blown jihadis are doing – and polling data of Muslims clearly reflects this.

History has proven unequivocally that anywhere you have emerging Muslim populations in non-Muslim nations, once they reach an elusive percentage point in terms of their population (some experts say between 3 to 5 percent), many will “become radicalized” and set the course for violent subjugation of the host culture.

So why would any non-Muslim nation of sound mind allow the importation of Muslims into their society?

The answer? They wouldn’t.



Here, it bears mentioning that the people engaging in the foregoing antisocial behavior are not “radical” jihadi commandos; they’re just Muslims, nonetheless wreaking havoc upon European society.



Like the irrefutable reality of Islam being the wellspring from which violent jihad and Islamist terror flows (a no-brainer to most of you), the Obama administration’s dismissive reaction to the Paris rally ought not be a surprise, because Obama and his posse find all of this jihadi mayhem positively delicious. Has no one considered the possibility that Obama wanted to send a message to the world that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists got what they deserved?



I have previously addressed in this space the fact that while it is being done rather quietly, Obama has been furiously importing Muslims into the U.S. – no doubt in order to reach that elusive percentage point of no return I mentioned earlier, whereupon ongoing Muslim-fomented civil unrest becomes inevitable.



I would add to that the necessity for Americans to acknowledge that a clear and present danger to this nation exists in the radical leftists, Islamists and sundry agenda-driven saboteurs who have insinuated themselves into places of power in America.

Religious Right Activist Wants National Guard Deployed To Stop Gay Couples' Marriages

Anti-LGBT activist Randy Thomasson has a message for governors across America: deploy the National Guard to stop same-sex marriages.

Thomasson, who leads the right-wing group Save California, detailed his proposal last week in a memo [PDF] to “pro-family leaders concerned about marriage”:

Each governor pledges themselves to “support and defend” the plain words of their state constitution, including, in morally conservative states, the definition of marriage as only for a man and a woman. Governors raise their right hand and publicly promise to “faithfully execute” (or carry out) these written laws, as commanded by their state constitutions.

Each governor also has an administration that serves his/her pleasure that is in charge of the state’s marriage forms (licenses and applications) that county clerks use.

And each governor is authorized to call out his/her state's militia or National Guard to enforce written laws and maintain public order against foreign and domestic enemies.



Given these facts, it is state governors that are unfortunately allowing homosexual “marriages.” And given their constitutional and statutory powers, it is not good enough for governors to merely protest by appealing to a higher court the unconstitutional opinions of bad judges.

...

In view of the current crisis on marriage, a constitutional governor can and should do the following:

• Announce he took an oath to obey the constitution, not to obey a judge’s unconstitutional opinion.

• Announce that no homosexual “marriage” licenses will be issues, and no county clerk is permitted to issue marriage licenses to anyone other than a qualified man and woman.

• Utilize the support of the state attorney general (if that constitutional officer is willing to stand alongside) or use the state’s National Guard to enforce the law at county clerk’s offices. (emphasis added)

Thomasson told WorldNetDaily yesterday that Republican governors aren’t doing enough to stop clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples following court decisions striking down marriage bans, and called for governors like Phil Bryant of Mississippi to use the National Guard to prevent same-sex marriages from taking place in their states.

“The casualties will be the children,” Thomasson said. “These Republican governors, by their own actions, are telling impressionable boys and girls ‘you can aspire to have a same-sex marriage for yourselves.’”

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality similarly told WND that “if someone stood up to the homosexual lobby and the courts, they would achieve hero status.”

Some state governors, such as Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, have indicated they will file further appeals to block the same-sex marriage rulings of federal judges. But Thomasson says this is a weak response.

“They’re doing an appeal in Mississippi, but their attorney general there has said that these same-sex marriages will begin happening if their appeal to higher courts is not successful,” Thomasson said. “The governor is supposed to be a strong Christian man, so what is he going to do? Is he really going to protect marriage? As governor, he’s the head of the Mississippi National Guard. He can refuse to alter marriage certificates. He can threaten to sue county clerks for violating the state Constitution on man-woman marriage.”

Progressives have not hesitated to play power politics when it comes to getting their agendas through, he said.



“Liberals will use their executive powers to do what they believe in,” Thomasson said. “Will pro-family governors use their powers to do what they believe in, not only what they believe in but what they have sworn to uphold and defend? Do we have to pull out the oath of office and read it to them? Do we have to pull out Black’s Law Dictionary and read them the definitions of the words they promised, such as ‘defend’ the Constitution and ‘faithfully execute’ the state laws?”

LaBarbera believes it would be politically popular for a governor to push the issue and defy the federal courts as having no authority over states’ rights to regulate marriage.

“Standing up to these courts would, I think, be good politics on the right. I would love to see it happen,” he told WND. “It’s a difference between being a politician and being a statesman. I think if someone stood up to the homosexual lobby and the courts, they would achieve hero status. We keep waiting for someone and it, unfortunately, never happens. I mean, 76 percent of the people voting can be wiped out by a single federal court decision?”

Thomasson said there is a big difference between California and conservative states like Mississippi, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina, all of which have either lost traditional marriage or are one judge’s decision away from losing it.

“It’s worse than criminal, because criminals usually hurt one person at a time, but the governors, if they betray the people by their cowardice in the face of a constitutional crisis, then they hurt many people by being AWOL,” he said. “The casualties will be the children. These Republican governors, by their own actions, are telling impressionable boys and girls ‘you can aspire to have a same-sex marriage for yourselves.’”

WorldNetDaily Columnist Thinks Legal Abortion Will Lead To Islamic Rule

The commentators over at WorldNetDaily are obsessed with warning about an imminent Islamic conquest of Europe and the U.S., and today the right-wing outlet published a column by Lord Christopher Monckton who is pretty sure that Russia is already a Muslim-majority nation.

“In Russia, Muslims already account for more than half the population,” Monckton writes, despite the fact that Muslims represent about one-tenth of the Russian population.

Terrified by “mass Muslim immigration” and fearing that Muslims are inherently criminal and violent, Monckton adds that legal abortion is killing off non-Muslims: “We are killing so many of our own citizens by abortion that the Muslims, who are morally superior to us in that they do not believe in killing unborn children, will soon outnumber us.”

Besides abortion and immigration, Monckton is afraid of President Obama because he’s a phony Christian “far more inclined toward Islam.”

Here, as in so many other fields, the left will simply lie because the lie is politically advantageous to it. President Hollande knows that there are at least 9 million Muslims in France. They are arriving at such a rapid rate that no one knows for sure just how many there are. But there are a lot. And very, very nearly all of them vote socialist. Totalitarians will always stand by other totalitarians.

But here’s the problem – for France and for many other European nations. We are killing so many of our own citizens by abortion that the Muslims, who are morally superior to us in that they do not believe in killing unborn children, will soon outnumber us.

How soon? Very soon. In Russia, Muslims already account for more than half the population. Even in Britain, which still theoretically retains some sort of immigration control, the left has deliberately turned a blind eye to mass Muslim immigration.

Mr. Obama is no better than President Hollande. He was once caught on camera bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia, and I have long suspected that the rather artificial stramash during his first election campaign about his worshiping at the tabernacle of an extremist Christian preacher was a calculated move by his spin-doctors to pretend that he is a Christian when he is ideologically far more inclined toward Islam.

Be that as it may, six in 10 of the French prison population are Muslims. France is not only importing and breeding Muslims: In doing so, she is importing and breeding crime. Why? Because – and this cannot be too often stressed – the Quran preaches violence and death against non-Muslims. Kill or maim an infidel and, under the Quranic disposition, you commit no crime.

WorldNetDaily: Obama Replacing Constitution With Sharia Law

The far-right outlet WorldNetDaily published an interview today with Joy Brighton, the author of ‘Sharia-ism is Here,’ which portrays a burqa-clad Statue of Liberty on the front cover, about President Obama’s response to the terrorist attacks in France. Unsurprisingly, Brighton believes that Obama’s reaction wasn’t forceful enough because he didn’t condemn Islam in his remarks, and she even accuses him of pushing Sharia law in his 2012 address to the United Nations.

“Barack Obama is complying with Shariah law in suggesting that criticism of Islam could be a criminal hate-speech offense,” she told WND. “In his statement to the United Nations, Obama does not defend free speech, has given in to Shariah law, and doing so as president is unconstitutional, because with this statement Obama abandons the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.”

Perhaps Brighton never bothered to actually read Obama’s 2012 speech, as the president dedicated his remarks to defending constitutional protections for the freedom of speech, even when it applies to speech considered by some to be hateful or blasphemous.

“Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech,” he said. “We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.”

But according to Brighton, such words amount to an endorsement of blasphemy laws.

“Barack Obama is complying with Shariah law in suggesting that criticism of Islam could be a criminal hate-speech offense,” she said. “In his statement to the United Nations, Obama does not defend free speech, has given in to Shariah law, and doing so as president is unconstitutional, because with this statement Obama abandons the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.”

She pointed out that totalitarian movements historically have advanced by restricting free speech.

“Communism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of communism the same as Nazism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of Nazism,” she pointed out. “Shariah-ism, what I call the global political movement of radical Islam, will also succeed by shutting down criticism and political debate.”



“Under the First Amendment, we have to be able to use our words freely, and when we have public officials like the president and the United Nations not using their words freely, but hedging to avoid describing the violence as radical Islamic terrorism, then we can see the extent to which ‘Shariah-ism’ has already developed strong roots in American society and the international community,” she said.



“The terrorist attack in Paris is a tragedy and a sobering reminder that ‘Shariah-ist’ ideology tolerates no dissent, no debate, no questioning, no challenge,” she warned.

“‘Shariah-ism’ is all about absolute power, absolute rule and absolute control, and it’s not just a European problem – it’s growing here in the United States as well,” she stressed. “Our state and local governments and public institutions need to get educated about this threat so they can take action to stop its growth. Western European countries allowed the threat of ‘Shariah-ism’ to spread until now tragically, it may be too late there. Let’s hope it’s not too late here.”

Larry Klayman's 2015 Predictions: Ebola, Race War And Dictatorship

Conservative lawyer and pundit Larry Klayman, who has for years dreamed of overthrowing President Obama with a popular uprising or a military coup, dedicates his first WorldNetDaily column of the new year to outlining the reasons to “rid the nation of the evil emperor in the White House” in 2015.

Klayman describes Obama as a “truly evil” leader who is “more dangerous than the terrorists themselves” and predicts that the U.S. will see a “massive epidemic” of Ebola in 2015 as a result of the president’s policies inviting “suicide terrorists” to “infect themselves and sneak into our country with the disease.” He adds that immigration reform will lead to a crime wave while the president and his allies launch an all-out race war.

“Once their job is complete, these treacherous traitors will be free to snuff out all remaining vestiges of freedom and erect their form of socialist dictatorship permanently,” he predicts.

Here are looming crises to watch in 2015 – which could send our country and the rest of the free world into a tailspin if not a death spiral.

First, thanks in large part to Obama’s pro-Islamic policies and actions, the Middle East is likely to explode. It’s not just ISIS that presents this real imminent threat, or the re-emergence of its rival terrorist groups, but potentially fatal is the situation with Israel. Abandoned by Obama in its quest to prevent a nuclear Iran, the Jewish state will finally be forced into acting alone, to prevent another potential Holocaust. The mullahs in Tehran continue to threaten to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth, and they mean it. They cannot be permitted to even get close to assembling nuclear bombs, with the already existent means via intercontinental missiles to deliver them even to Western Europe.

Obama and his leftist comrades, however, continue to appease Iran, much like they do with Communist Cuba, thereby weakening significantly not only Israel’s national security but our own. But that is their goal – to bring the United States and its non-Muslim allies to their knees and make our nation into a mere fraction of what it used to be under the likes of President Reagan. Obama’s mission is not only truly treasonous, but also truly evil. He is more dangerous than the terrorists themselves, because he is destroying us from within, and the Republican opposition is standing by and watching this happen, “playing it safe, ” not wanting to offend anyone who might vote for their candidates and waiting for their chance to retake the White House in 2016. But by then, it could be too late, even were they really to do something then to save the republic.



Third, while somewhat dormant for now, expect an increase in deadly Ebola virus infections not just in West Africa, but here in our country. Not wanting to stem the flow of visitors from his native Africa, particularly from Liberia, Sierra Leon and other ravaged states, Obama continues to open the door to a real and imminent health crisis here at home. And, should suicide terrorists opt to infect themselves and sneak into our country with the disease, this likely prospect could well create a massive epidemic.

Fourth, there is the continuing looming catastrophe of open American borders, which indeed terrorists would be smart to exploit to further their ends. Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty, which I am challenging in court along with a number of his other scandals. Obama’s amnesty will allow many criminals loose to run free within our borders, deepening the worsening crime rate in many areas of the nation.

Fifth and hardly least, is the corrosive race war Obama and his racist friends such as the so-called Rev. Louis Farrakhan and the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been fomenting. This had not just led just to the deaths of more cops, but threatens all of us, including noble and courageous black conservatives who speak out and act against this Ku Klux Klan-like racism. Thanks to Obama and his fellow race baiters, the nation is being pulled apart at its seams. Today, Obama and his minions have ignited the racial and religious divides and driven the country into what is virtually open warfare among our diverse populations. They have cleverly done this to divide us and destroy our social fabric. Once their job is complete, these treacherous traitors will be free to snuff out all remaining vestiges of freedom and erect their form of socialist dictatorship permanently.

I would have liked to write a positive column this New Year’s. Indeed, over several cups of coffee on a balcony overlooking the majestic Atlantic Ocean this morning, I thought long and hard about being more optimistic. But I could not put my head in the sand that was across the road and pretend that all is well on the “western front.” It is not – and it’s time that We the People face reality and take hard, forceful legal steps in 2015 to legally rid the nation of the evil emperor in the White House, who is on the cusp of destroying all that is good about our great republic.

WorldNetDaily: Ferguson Protests Are The New 'Birth Of A Nation,' Will Cause Whites To 'Strike Back'

“What if whites strike back?” asks WorldNetDaily’s Mychal Massie in a column today in which he argues that people protesting police violence against African Americans are perpetuating anti-black racism in the same way as the infamous film “Birth of a Nation.” This, Massie claims, will cause whites (who he says are being "unfairly villified" by the protests) to turn to violence against African Americans.

“[I]f a phony movie was able to give rise to at least two generations of condemnation of blacks, what will the in-your-face belligerent hostilities so many of them exhibit today ultimately result in?” he demands.

It would serve race mongers well to consider that even a docile old dog will bite you if you mistreat it often enough and long enough. Tangential to same is the reality of the “laws of unintended consequences.”

I’m tired of seeing, reading and hearing white people blamed for everything from black boys not being able to read to whites being privileged because of the color of their skin. If I am tired of these Americans being used as scapegoats to further the agenda of race mongers, then it is a sure bet that those being unjustly vilified are especially weary of same.

To put it succinctly, the single greatest non-biblical truth today is that many times the majority of blacks are their own worst enemies. Many blacks go through life with a chip on their shoulder and bad attitudes toward whites. Many blacks growing up in dysfunctional single-parent or no-parent homes are loathe to realize that their lives are the result of bad decisions made by their families that adversely affect their adulthood – it’s not the white man.

But as I said, there is a thing called “the laws of unintended consequences.” To that end, sooner or later a pendulum reaches its arc and starts to swing back in the other direction.

How long before white people, many of whom are growing increasingly resentful at being falsely maligned, decide to respond in kind? How much longer will whites stand by and allow the likes of Sharpton and Obama to continually cast them as racist villains?

If the 1915 silent movie “The Birth of a Nation” by D.W. Griffith, which depicted blacks as unintelligent and sexual predators of white women (which was a lie), gave rise to the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan, what can we expect to be brought about by the heathen behavior of many blacks today?

Many blacks are quick to attack those of us who condemn the untoward, barbaric behavior of some blacks. They curse us for not glossing over their behavior and for not engaging in “blame whitey.” But if a phony movie was able to give rise to at least two generations of condemnation of blacks, what will the in-your-face belligerent hostilities so many of them exhibit today ultimately result in?

America has figuratively bent over backward to assuage its perceived guilt, but for many blacks that is not good enough. They accuse and self-alienate but do nothing to incorporate the greatness of America into their lives.

How much longer will America allow blacks to vilify those who have done them no harm – even as blacks attack, terrorize and condemn those who truly do just want to get along?

Syndicate content

WorldNetDaily Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Thursday 02/26/2015, 10:35am
Frank Gaffney thinks that Rep. André Carson, one of two Muslim members of Congress, should lose his seat on the House Intelligence Committee because he might hand classified information to Muslim Brotherhood operatives. Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist who leads the Center for Security Policy, told WorldNetDaily that Carson, an Indiana Democrat, may use his position to advance “the imposition of Shariah worldwide and the establishment of a caliphate.” Gaffney bases his claims on Carson’s work with the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 02/24/2015, 11:00am
WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie says he is deeply troubled that one of his friends criticized his use of the word “fairy” to describe President Obama, a criticism which Massie is treating as a grave attack on his freedom of speech. But rest assured, Massie tells readers that he will never “accept that my using the words such as ‘fairy, niggardly, heathen, pagan,’ ad nauseum [sic] are injurious to homosexuals, blacks and Muslims.” Massie adds that the same friend who rebuked his choice of words also has “information” that Obama “... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Thursday 02/19/2015, 10:30am
David Barton is outraged that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg nodded off during the State of the Union address last month, which Ginsburg attributed to the “very fine California wine” that Justice Anthony Kennedy had shared at dinner that evening. Barton writes in a WorldNetDaily column today that while he isn’t personally “calling for the removal of Ginsburg for her recent faux pas,” Justice Ginsburg’s nap represented bad behavior and disrespect to the U.S. Constitution, both offenses warranting impeachment and removal from office. You may recall pictures of... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 02/17/2015, 3:30pm
Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told WorldNetDaily’s Radio America this weekend that he’s heard people in America say that “maybe we just need a good, caring dictator,” and that it’s this kind of apathetic attitude that’s allowing President Obama to turn the country into “a totalitarian, dictatorial type country” through things like his executive actions on immigration. “Unfortunately, when you have 50 percent of the American people who are saying, ‘Hey, we’re okay with not having checks and balances in our government,... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 02/17/2015, 12:45pm
Fox News contributor Thomas McInerney appeared on WorldNetDaily's Radio America yesterday, where he condemned the White House’s statement on the beheading of 21Egyptian Christians in Libya. Angry that the statement didn't specifically mention that the victims were Christian, McInerney told host Greg Corombos that "maybe we have some Islamists embedded in the White House." In an interview last year, McInerney called Obama a treasonous leader ​who is "helping Al Qaeda" and "helping ISIS." MORE >
Brian Tashman, Thursday 02/12/2015, 12:15pm
Pouncing on David Axelrod’s recent claim that President Obama hid his support for same-sex marriage during the 2008 presidential campaign, Jack Cashill of WorldNetDaily wonders today about what else the president is hiding…perhaps, his secret Muslim faith? Cashill writes today in a column titled “Barry’s Stunning Bit of Blasphemy” that Axelrod’s “revelation casts further doubt upon Obama’s professed Christianity and fuels the speculation that he might well be a crypto-Muslim.” Cashill points to a Jamie Foxx joke as further proof that... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 02/11/2015, 10:30am
Mission America’s Linda Harvey is urging conservatives to use Valentine’s Day to “promote true love,” which, as she explains in a WorldNetDaily column today, means opposing LGBT rights. She urges readers to mark the holiday by demanding that companies drop their support for LGBT equality and posting “an online comment challenging notions of homosexuality as ‘marriage’ or anti-Christian bigotry.” “Don’t be afraid to say, ‘Not true!’ when some maintain that sodomy and abortion are the high ground, as is same-sex ‘... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 02/06/2015, 1:30pm
Right-wing activist Bradlee Dean is pretty sure that United States intelligence services started Al Qaeda and even trained ISIS fighters, a theory that he lays out in WorldNetDaily today. Demanding to know why President Obama is “aiding and abetting America’s enemies,” Dean claims that Obamacare is really just a sly way for the president to distract Americans from the growth of ISIS and his surreptitious work to assist terrorist groups like ISIS, take away Americans’ guns and advance the New World Order. Dean approvingly cites Pierre-Henri Bunel, a 9/11 truther, to... MORE >