WorldNetDaily

Erik Rush: Obama Engaging In Triple Cover-Up Of Benghazi

Channeling Glenn Beck, WorldNetDaily columnist and Fox News regular Erik Rush today writes that President Obama orchestrated the attack on the US annex in Benghazi, which he claims had “clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria,” to cover up the weapons shipment. 

Now why would Obama and his supposed Islamist allies attack the same US annex they believe was arming Islamists? Well, as Rush explains, it was all an effort to cover up the fact that they were doing it in the first place, and then the administration had to cover up the reasons for the attack.

A cover-up of the cover-up.

But despite the fact that this makes absolutely no sense, Rush went on to say that the insurgents in Syria “came to possess chemical weapons” thanks to Obama, so now Obama must attack Syria in order to “erase the evidence of having provided them” and cover that up too.

Yep, it’s the old cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up.

Most observers have settled on the likelihood that it is his desire to redirect attention from his many scandals, Obamacare and immigration reform legislation that impels the president toward carrying out this attack. There is also a distinct possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood (whom he has supported worldwide and who have fighters among the rebels in Syria) is putting pressure on him to deliver after his failure to resist the ouster of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Q: How does Obama know what kind of weapons the rebels in Syria have?

A: He has the receipts …

I propose another scenario: It has been well-established that the Obama administration clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria. (I say “rebels in Syria” rather than “Syrian rebels” because many of them are jihadis from other nations.) It is a pretty safe bet that this operation was at least part of the reason for the 9/11/12 attack on the American facility in Benghazi. I have contended for some time that President Obama himself either orchestrated the attack or was party to it. His motivation, I have asserted, would have been in perceiving a need to erase the evidence of the Benghazi operation – and perhaps even some of the personnel involved.

A subsequent revelation that Morsi provided military assets for the attack on the Benghazi compound does tend to lend credence to the notion that Obama was involved. After all, Obama was Morsi’s benefactor; indeed, there would have been no Arab Spring and no Muslim Brotherhood ascendancy in Egypt had it not been for Obama’s destabilization of the region.

Since it has been established that the Obama administration provided weapons to the rebels in Syria, and nearly a certainty these factions came to possess chemical weapons, is it then possible that Obama’s desire to strike Syria with all due speed stems from a need to erase the evidence of having provided them, and perhaps even other treasonous actions? It would certainly make the truth getting out with regard to Benghazi much more of a threat to Obama if evidence speaking to this being factual exists.

If this is factual, Barack Obama might ultimately be looking at occupying a noted place in history quite different from the one he currently occupies.

WND Is Just Asking The Question: Is Obama 'Ushering In Islamic Caliphate?'

Today’s WorldNetDaily News Alert was a true double-whammy, with two heavily slated reports phrased as questions so as to not take actual responsibility for the incendiary claims made in the articles.

“Are Terrorists Setting U.S. Wildfires?’ Joe Kovacs asks, relying on unsupported claims that Islamic extremists were maybe behind a Colorado wildfire.

As WND reported in June, an expert on Islamic terrorism believes a wildfire that ravaged the outskirts of Colorado Springs, Colo., killing two people and destroying more than 500 homes, should be examined by terror investigators.

“One thing that my investigators have given me the authority to state is that they have all but ruled out natural causes as the cause of this fire,” said Sheriff Terry Maketa at the time. “I can’t really go any further on that, but I can say we are pretty confident it was not, for instance, a lightning strike.”

In a message to WND’s Muslim readers, the NewsAlert offered this message: “If you are a Muslim … a Sunni Muslim … and you dream of the day the caliphate will be restored … then thank Allah for this man …”

Obama, of course!

WND reporter Aaron Klein’s post, “‘Manchurian President’ Ushering In Islamic Caliphate?,” argues that Obama has “empowered Islamic radicals” in order to create a global Islamic government. Klein, the author of “The Manchurian President,” is publicizing his new book “Impeachable Offenses.”

Since assuming office, President Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening U.S. enemies and tacitly supporting Muslim Brotherhood revolutions that have empowered Islamic radicals, charges a new book.

In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,”New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott demonstrate that Obama’s policies have been helping to install Muslim Brotherhood-friendly regimes to the detriment of U.S. national security and world stability.

“Obama’s policies are installing political Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa in a tidal wave of change already reaping disastrous results for those regions as well as for U.S. interests there,” write Klein and Elliott.



Islamic caliphate?

Mubarak was only the beginning, write Klein and Elliott. Obama’s support for a U.S. ally’s ouster and replacement with radical Islamic elements would be repeated numerous times in the Middle East and North Africa, to the great detriment of the American war on terror, the authors write.

WND: Obama Sending Secret Muslim Foot Signals

After cracking the case of President Obama’s secret Muslim ring, WorldNetDaily’s latest scoop exposes Obama’s secret Muslim foot signals.

In her column, “Obama Sending Muslim Subtle Message?,” Andrea Shea King claims that a photo of Obama with his foot on the Resolute desk of the Oval Office is actually “a wordless message of support to the Muslim Brotherhood, Arab street and Islamic community in general.”

“It is, after all, common knowledge that the Arab world considers the bottom of one’s shoes the ultimate sign of disrespect,” she writes.

Of course, Republican presidents from George W. Bush to Gerald Ford were also photographed with their feet on the Oval Office desk, but maybe they were just sending secret Muslim messages as well!

How many of our fellow countrymen thought the same thing when viewing this official White House photo (by Pete Souza) of the president with his shod foot firmly planted upon an historic American treasure – the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office?



Is it possible I might have misinterpreted this photo, which played prominently on the Drudge Report site last Sunday? Is it possible President Obama had a White House photographer release this official image to the world to send a wordless message of support to the Muslim Brotherhood, Arab street and Islamic community in general? To convey his disdain and disregard for all things traditionally American? It is, after all, common knowledge that the Arab world considers the bottom of one’s shoes the ultimate sign of disrespect. And it’s not the first time he’s done it.



Twitchy gathered comments from others on Twitter who were incensed to see Obama’s careless disrespect for America’s treasures. And though I agree with their righteous indignation, is it possible they missed the intended point Obama sought to make?

Corsi: KGB Behind Democratic Party Strategies

On Tuesday, Jerome Corsi chatted with VCY America’s Vic Eliason about what he insists are President Obama’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, lamenting that Republicans have been “cowered” and refuse to attack Obama and his fellow Democrats over the issue.

Why? Because, he says, Democrats have made Republicans afraid of being called “racist,” a ploy that Corsi claims was originally created by the KGB to advance “a socialist or communist agenda.”

Duh!

The Democrats have cowered many Republicans into thinking that just by calling the Republicans racist they can back off any criticism of Obama. Democrats have been very successful with that technique. By the way Vic, it was a technique first recommended by the KGB to use for the left. It was recommended back in the late 1950s as a way to win the argument and advance as progressives what was really a socialist or communist agenda. Corsi, who believes Obama is married to a Muslim man and wears a secret Muslim ring (which you can see here), even floated treason charges over the allegations that Obama is financing “Muslim Brotherhood agents.”

Corsi, who believes Obama is married to a Muslim man and wears a secret Muslim ring (which you can see here), even floated treason charges over the allegations that Obama is financing “Muslim Brotherhood agents.”

Later in the interview, the WorldNetDaily “journalist” maintained that “Obama is widely regarded as being Muslim Brotherhood,” either as a member or sympathizer, by most people in the Middle East.

If there was ever going to be a charge of treason, or let’s put it even less—how about Iran-Contra where Ronald Reagan was diverting funds from one purpose stated by Congress to paying bribes, essentially, to Iran in a very complicated scheme that benefited the Contras in Nicaragua. That was an enormous problem for Reagan when it surfaced. Iran-Contra pales in significance to this. This is millions of dollars going to a foreign government to pay Muslim Brotherhood agents.



In the Middle East, Obama is widely regarded as being Muslim Brotherhood. Countries that I’ve visited or communicate with, or read in terms of getting translated, it’s very, very clear that the Muslim Brotherhood is—people in the Middle East believe Obama is not only sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood but probably a member, certainly as close to being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s how they perceive him.

Erik Rush Links Obama to Oklahoma Murder

In his WorldNetDaily column yesterday, Fox News regular Erik Rush linked President Obama to the murder of an Australian baseball player in Oklahoma. Rush began his column by making the false claim that “three black youths” were behind the shooting. Rush isn’t alone in fudging the facts about the race of the alleged shooters: the fact that one of the three suspects is white hasn’t stopped right-wing outlets including Fox News, The Daily Caller and WorldNetDaily from using a phony photo to claim all three suspects are black. But for Rush, the Oklahoma murder—and a stabbing in Queens— is all part of an Obama-led race war.

It’s reaching near-epidemic proportions, but the press is still failing to report on the uptick in black-on-white crime in America. Some will be familiar with the accounts of violent black-on-white crime reported by WND of late, several of which have been incredibly brutal and gruesome.

Last Friday, 22-year-old Australian Christopher Lane was gunned down by three black youths in Duncan, Okla. The crime is not being reported as racially motivated, despite the fact that the assailants deliberately chose an upscale, predominantly white neighborhood. Neither is the stabbing attack on 17-year-old Natasha Martinez in Queens, N.Y., being classified as racially motivated, even though this one might be the work of a serial assailant. I imagine the lack of coverage could be due to the fact that Martinez has a Latino surname and appears white, whereas George Zimmerman (who was acquitted of second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin) has an Anglo surname but identifies as Latino. If that appears convoluted and nonsensical, that’s only because it is.



Like many of the audacious and bizarre practices of the Obama administration, the idea that it would be deliberately engaging in fomenting racial tension is incomprehensible to the average American specifically because the concept is so audacious and bizarre. Yet, we know that the Obama Justice Department was involved in materially supporting anti-Zimmerman protests within days after Martin’s killing, and that Obama has long-standing ties to black radical organizations such as the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).

There’s little doubt that such parties knew they had an advocate in their corner from the moment Obama was inaugurated; thus, they became far more vocal. While the president’s tone has been conciliatory (except for the occasional slip), his rhetoric remains in the same vein as that of a black activist, albeit more refined. In the meantime, the economic woes of blacks have increased along with the rest of America, and black-on-black crime is at an alarming high; now, they’re being told that racist whites with guns are stalking them in the night.



Whether naïveté, ideology, stupidity, or a combination thereof on the part of the press is to blame for its complicity, the fact is that this plays into the hands of the Obama administration and the radical left at large. Also incomprehensible in the minds of average Americans is the notion that these campaigns of division (race being only one) are ultimately intended to bring about a degree of civil unrest that will superficially justify the use of force on the part of the administration.

Remember, this is the president who, in 2008 advocated for a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].”

And all the people cheered …

Steve Stockman Not a Birther on Ted Cruz; Still Thinks Obama's Birth Certificate Is Fraudulent

Birther congressman Steve Stockman says he’s not a birther after all, now that Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz is considering a run for president. The Texas Republican, who is crafting a birther bill with Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), said his home state senator is indeed eligible for the presidency even though he was born outside of the US.

The debunked birther conspiracy theory centers on the idea that President Obama forged his Hawaiian birth certificate to hide his foreign birth to an American mother and Kenyan father, which would make him ineligible to be president. Cruz, who also has an American mother but unlike Obama was actually born abroad, would therefore also be deemed ineligible if birthers had any logical consistency, which apparently they don’t.

Stockman told the arch-birther website WorldNetDaily that he has no problem with Cruz’s likely presidential bid, noting that they are both friends and attend the same church.

However, he still thinks Obama might have a “fraudulent” birth certificate and thinks he was listed as a “foreign student,” a reference to another discredited conspiracy theory.

To hear Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, describe it, the difference between President Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas – on the question of their eligibility for the highest office in the land – may be a case of comparing apples and oranges.

The congressman said with Cruz, it is a legal question of whether he is eligible to serve as president – whereas the issue with Obama is not really about where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.

Cruz released a copy of his birth certificate Sunday to the Dallas Morning News, as some have begun questioning the possible presidential contender’s eligibility, just as many have questioned Obama’s eligibility since 2008 when the argument was first raised by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The Cruz birth certificate shows he was born in Canada in 1970 to an American mother, which gave him American citizenship.

Obama, on the other hand, is the subject of Stockman’s proposed legislation calling for a congressional investigation of both the president’s constitutional eligibility and the authenticity of the birth certificate he released to show he was born in Hawaii.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Stockman said, in the case of Obama, it is more of a question about the validity of the documentation as well as his forthrightness, whereas with Cruz, it is more of a matter for legal and constitutional scholars to decide.

Stockman was happy to talk about his fellow Texan and tea-party favorite, saying, “He’s a good friend of mine and a great guy. In fact, I believe we go to the same church in Houston.”

The congressman said he doesn’t really know if Cruz is eligible for the presidency, but Cruz has been upfront and Obama was not.

Stockman noted that it took a long time for Obama to produce a document, and even now, questions linger.

“One of the things I always questioned was the documentation of the president, whether that was fraudulent,” he explained. “But I don’t question Cruz. Ted came right out and said, ‘Here’s the documentation.



Stockman mentioned another element that separates the case of Cruz and that of the president: the persistence of reports that Obama was listed as a foreign student in school and the fact he has yet to release records that would disprove that.

Lord Monckton, a WND commentator, even insisted that he was never a birther — despite having repeatedly claimed [PDF] that Obama’s supposed foreign birth made him ineligible to be president — and is fine with a Cruz presidency.

WND columnist and former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Lord Monckton also has said the issue with Obama is not where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.

Monckton has claimed the birth certificate Obama finally produced after years of prodding is “plainly a forgery” and could be dismantled with software.

Monckton, of course, just last year wrote in WorldNetDaily that people who are not born on US soil could not be president:

This is what your Constitution says:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

No ifs. No buts. This is the ancient and sensible ius soli: you are a citizen of the nation on whose soil you were born. Not born here? Go and play president somewhere else.

Unless, that soil is Canada and your name is Ted Cruz, apparently.

Klayman: America 'Has Been Hijacked by Islam and Our President Is the leader of this Muslim Revolution'

Conservatives are predictably freaking out that a tiny fringe group closely linked to the 9/11 Truthers is organizing a “Million Muslim March” in Washington D.C. on September 11. In a WorldNetDaily column, Larry Klayman suggests that President Obama is behind the march—the name of which has since been changed to the “Million American March Against Fear”—and believes he might even speak at the rally: “They have been given a virtual green light to do so by the mullah in chief. And, even if he does not show his devilish face at this highly provocative demonstration of the growing Islamic influence in the United States and abroad, Obama will be there with his fellow Muslims in spirit.”

Klayman, who links to another WND article that wonders if Obama is the Antichrist, goes on to accuse Obama of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and charging that the President fears the US military “may one day rise up and oust him and his comrades,” calling on readers to pray for a coup so that “we the People will soon be liberated from this modern-day pharaoh.”

Finally, there is good news in the Middle East. The Egyptian military, having removed the Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi after he and his terrorist group hijacked the democratic process, is now in the act of systematically destroying this Islamic cancer on the Arab state’s secular body politic. But the good news for Egypt and by extension Israel, its Jewish neighbor, is bad news for Barack Hussein Obama, our so-called “Muslim president.”

In a statement issued yesterday from the stronghold of the left, Martha’s Vineyard, where the “mullah in chief” is vacationing on our dime, Obama bellowed, “The United States strongly condemns the steps taken by the Egyptian interim government and security forces.” In so doing, Obama also canceled yearly and crucial national security joint defense exercises with the Egyptian military. This is an outrage; for once strong action is taken to snuff out the Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of all Islamic terrorist groups and the parent that houses al-Qaida, and our president condemns it, leaving no doubt where his loyalties lie – not that we needed any further proof after five years of his bowing down to Saudi kings, endorsing the Ground Zero Mosque, disrespecting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, doing all he can to harm Israel and a host of other anti-Semitic and anti-Christian actions by him and his administration. But this condemnation is the pinnacle of his pro-Muslim efforts to aid the Islamic revolution at the expense of Jews and Christians and our national security interests in the Middle East and worldwide.



The hard reality is that our nation, not just Egypt pre-Morsi, has been hijacked by Islam and our president is the leader of this Muslim revolution. It is no wonder Muslims have just in the last few days felt emboldened to declare that they will wage a “Million Man Muslim March” in Washington, D.C., this Sept. 11. They have been given a virtual green light to do so by the mullah in chief. And, even if he does not show his devilish face at this highly provocative demonstration of the growing Islamic influence in the United States and abroad, Obama will be there with his fellow Muslims in spirit.

Perhaps Obama fears what the Egyptian military has done to Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood because he knows that the American people and its military, who have been sacrificed to “win the hearts and minds” of the enemy, may one day rise up and oust him and his comrades. One can only pray – not to Allah, but to our Lord and Savior – that justice will be done and that We the People will soon be liberated from this modern-day pharaoh. While Obama’s political opposition is no Moses, we hold our own future in our hands and must act soon before all is lost.

Parker: Gay Rights Advocates 'Hijacked The Civil Rights Movement' And Are 'Destroying Black Communities'

Add Star Parker to the list of Religious Right activists angry about the exclusion of singer Donnie McClurkin, an ‘ex-gay’ preacher who has likened gay people to vultures and vampires, from an event commemorating the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Parker writes in WorldNetDaily that “homosexuals have hijacked the civil-rights movement” and “have interjected the very values that are destroying black communities,” such as “the escalation of crime and disease – much tied to irresponsible sexual behavior.”

The purging of Grammy Award winner Donnie McClurkin from performing at a concert commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1963 civil-rights March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech should serve as yet another wake-up call to Christian black Americans.

McClurkin, a black pastor and gospel music superstar, was asked to step down from his featured performance by Washington Mayor Vincent Gray as result of pressure from homosexual activists. McClurkin preaches against the homosexual lifestyle from his pulpit and says he himself departed and was saved from this lifestyle through God’s mercy.



I would argue that it is these very efforts to purge Christian values and replace them with political power that has limited the success and achievement of the civil-rights movement. It is the collapse of black family life, the escalation of crime and disease – much tied to irresponsible sexual behavior – that has occurred over the 50 years since the March on Washington that has been so deleterious to black progress.

The civil-rights movement was a Christian movement. It is high time that the black pastor, rather than the black politician, return to leadership in black American life. It is time for the Bible, rather than political answers, to define black life.

In a poll done by Zogby International earlier this year, commissioned by BET founder Robert Johnson, 28 percent of blacks agreed and 55 percent disagreed that gay rights are the same thing as rights for African-Americans.

Yet homosexuals have hijacked the civil-rights movement. And in doing so, they have interjected the very values that are destroying black communities.

Let’s take back our movement.

Rebuild black families by restoring the centrality of traditional Christian values to black life. Only support politicians who sign onto this agenda. And give black parents the choice to get their kids out of public schools and send them to church schools.

Erik Rush: Obama and Oprah Will Use 'The Butler' To Stoke Anti-White Violence

After appearing on Fox News’ Hannity last night, Erik Rush published a column on WorldNetDaily today predicting that President Obama will use the new movie about an African American White House butler, along with other efforts “to rile black Americans,” to provoke a race war against whites.

Rush claims that “The Butler,” which stars Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey, is part of a plan “to initiate widespread civil unrest at the president’s push of a button” and add to the “instances of black-on-white violent crime since Obama came into office.”

Winfrey is promoting a new film, “The Butler,” which chronicles a black butler’s years of service in the White House during the Civil Rights Movement. While the subject matter should make for interesting fare, given Winfrey’s sensibilities and associates (like the Obamas, for example) there is little doubt that the film will be used in the ongoing effort to rile black Americans. As I’ve said in the past, racial tension is one of the many circuits the administration has constructed that, when completed, may be used to initiate widespread civil unrest at the president’s push of a button.



There have been quite a few instances of black-on-white violent crime since Obama came into office; these have gone largely unreported by the establishment press for reasons that should be obvious. The point is that some blacks have become sufficiently motivated to perpetrate these crimes, and it is all – all – due to the lies into which they have subscribed.



All of this culminates in successful blacks like Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee, Jay-Z and the perennially brainless Kanye West being able to carp about rampant institutional racism in America and not get laughed into the adjoining star system. Rather, their rhetorical idiocy is eagerly digested by millions (here, it actually is millions) of black Americans, and those who attempt to enlighten or defend blacks’ humanity are branded as racists.

There is, of course, a certain irony in the fact that President Obama’s ethnicity is the only thing that has allowed him to get away with a myriad of high crimes and misdemeanors. Even with the countenance of the press, any of our previous chief executives, having committed the same offenses and executed similar policies, would have run so far afoul of the people and other elected officials to warrant removal with all due speed.

Joseph Farah Blames Florida Facebook Murder on Liberals, of Course

WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah dedicates his column today to the Florida man who allegedly killed his wife and then posted a picture of her dead body on Facebook, which Farah of course argues is all the fault of liberals. Farah writes that the murder, which was all over the news, was in fact “not even news” because, in the words of Farah’s brother David, “our politically correctly liberal culture is condoning and glorifying all of this and calling it ‘tolerance.’”

The argument is hard to summarize because it makes no sense, so we’ll let the Farah brothers take it from here:

“On his Facebook page, Medina claimed to be a supervisor at a property management company and to have appeared in the Miami-based crime drama ‘Burn Notice,’ though his name doesn’t appear in online credits for the show. But he’s out there bragging: ‘I was on TV! I was on “Burn Notice”! I killed my wife; I put it on Facebook! Hey, Facebook friends, I’ll he see you later! You’ll be seeing a lot of me!’ My brother, David, sent me a note. He says, ‘You’re right about one thing, wrong about the other. We’re experiencing no greater depravity today than ever. It’s the same, because human nature is human nature.’

“Then he said, ‘I think there is a striking difference now in America, in that our politically correctly liberal culture is condoning and glorifying all of this and calling it ‘tolerance,’ and you know, that is right. That sort of rings the bell for me. That’s what it is. It’s not that it’s happening; it’s always happened, this kind of depravity. ‘There’s nothing new since Genesis.’ You’ve heard the old thing. What is bothering me is that it doesn’t bother as many people.

“It’s [Daniel Patrick] Moynihan, the ‘defining deviancy down’ business, and we end up condoning this stuff – and if we don’t condone it, we glorify it, because the left wants to take every one of these acts of depravity and use it to advance their agenda or an element of their agenda, such as guns or what have you. ‘We have to understand the rage,’ it’s said. ‘We have to be tolerant of people who have come from unfortunate, low-class socioeconomic circumstances.’

“It’s called tolerance and acceptance and understanding, rather than some of this stuff being condemned and dealt with, and that’s what’s disturbing. Then you add to it that the secular left, the people that traffic and love immortality, love throwing standards out the window; they don’t want any standards. That’s exactly what it is. It is the lack of being shocked, lack of revulsion, and even the laughing at and acceptance of this stuff. ”

Rush used the word “depraved.” He also described the news item as an example of the way “the descent our culture is taking [us] toward the sewer.” All of this is very accurate.

But we should recognize it for what it is: “The descent into depravity.” Of course ugly, sinful, immoral and repugnant behavior has been going on since Genesis. But today, it’s normal. It’s not even news.

And that’s how a nation, a culture, a society descends into depravity.

Hutcherson: 'Homosexual Lobby' Is Trying 'To Turn Dr. King into a Queen'

Religious Right and ex-gay groups are up in arms that Washington D.C. mayor Vincent Gray revoked an invitation to gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who claims that he was “delivered” from homosexuality, to perform at an event commemorating the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.” McClurkin has called homosexuality a “perversion” and a “curse,” scolded “evil young hard butch girls,” and described gay men as “vampires” and “vultures” who “prey” on children.

McClurkin and his defenders claim that his heterosexualization, not his anti-gay remarks, got him booted from the event. The ex-gay group PFOX hailed McClurkin as a victim of anti-ex-gay discrimination. “Gays have more power than blacks in [Washington D.C.],” PFOX charged. “As shown with Donnie McClurkin, ex-gays are the most powerless and discriminated against minority in America today.”

Pastor Ken Hutcherson in WorldNetDaily even argued that if “it were up to Mayor Gray, Dr. King wouldn’t even be invited to this event.”

“Unless you’re living a homosexual lifestyle yourself, you aren’t important anymore,” Hutcherson writes. “Maybe Mayor Gray is too spineless to stand up to a homosexual lobby that limits free speech, bullies straights and tries everything it can to turn Dr. King into a queen.”

Of course, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom was organized by a gay man.

Apparently the mayor of Washington, D.C., Vincent Gray, has forgotten his city’s history. When Gray was 20 years old, a Baptist minister by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial before 250,000 people and delivered what is considered by many to be the most eloquent speech in our nation’s history. The message by this gifted orator was simple: He had a dream. And that dream was the insatiable hope that one day people would learn to look past a person’s skin color and see them for who they were on the inside.

But now that dream has been elasticized. It’s been rewritten and modified. That dream is no longer about ethnic equality; it’s broadened to include anything from sexual orientation to fighting for the rights of illegal immigrants. In short, King’s speech apparently had a few extra pages that he was even unaware of.



You see, in the politically correct times in which we live, sexual orientation trumps everything.

My fellow brothers and sisters with darker pigmentation, please hear me carefully. We are no longer a minority. The liberals have no use for us because they know most of us will pull the electoral lever for them every time. We are taken for granted. Unless you’re living a homosexual lifestyle yourself, you aren’t important anymore. Mayor Gray’s decision to ban a black gospel singer proves that civil rights have turned uncivilized. Let’s be honest: If it were up to Mayor Gray, Dr. King wouldn’t even be invited to this event.

Is this the new face of the black community? Is gray the new black?

Look, maybe Mayor Gray is senile and his memory has faded in the past 50 years. Maybe he’s had a lot on his mind because he’s under investigation for a campaign finance scandal. Heck, maybe the mayor is on the down-low himself. Or maybe the ban on McClurkin is simpler than all of those things: Maybe Mayor Gray is too spineless to stand up to a homosexual lobby that limits free speech, bullies straights and tries everything it can to turn Dr. King into a queen.

Birthers for Ted Cruz

The possible 2016 presidential candidacy of Canadian-born Texas Sen. Ted Cruz presents something of a conundrum for the birthers who have spent the past several years declaring that President Obama was born in Kenya and therefore ineligible for the presidency. While the Congressional Research Service [PDF] and many others hold that Cruz is eligible since his mother is a US citizen, birthers contend that Obama is ineligible to be president since they believe—without any real evidence—that he was born abroad to an American mother.

This weekend, arch-birther Donald Trump tried to avoid a question about Cruz’s eligibility, saying that he wasn’t sure where Cruz was born.

But Lord Christopher Monckton, columnist for the birther “news” site WorldNetDaily, seems to have no qualms about Cruz’s eligibility, writing that he wants to erect a statue of Cruz and can already envision the Texas senator as a successful two-term president:

Ted Cruz is one to watch. And let us not wait until after he has served two spectacular terms as President of the United States before we engage some rising Michelangelo to carve a noble statue of him.

For the newly minted senator from Texas, who has already gotten off to a good start by speaking out against killing little children in their mother’s womb and has proposed to defund ObamachaosTM, now proposes to sweep away the hated, corrupt Infernal Revenue “Service” and replace today’s graduated income tax with a flat-rate tax that is the same for everyone.



Poverty endures solely because the left gain votes from it. Ted Cruz is one of the few politicians in either House of Congress who understand this. And he cares enough to do something about it. That is why he deserves his statue.

Of course, Monckton is a birther. In fact, he wrote an entire report [PDF] alleging that President Obama should and might be removed from office over the issue.

But at the same time, Monckton is perfectly happy with building a Michelangelo-inspired statue of Ted Cruz even before “he has served two spectacular terms as President of the United States.”

WND: 'BSA Is Conditioning Scouts to Become Little Soldiers for Socialism'

WorldNetDaily is angry that the Boy Scouts of America introduced a sustainability merit badge, with columnist Jane Chastain arguing that it is one of the horrible consequences of its decision to “admit openly gay youth.”

“Unfortunately, these innocent young boys are being indoctrinated into Agenda 21,” Chastain writes, “sustainability is the hammer the United Nations uses in an attempt to bring all the nations of the world into submission.”

She claims that the organization’s relationship with the World Organization of the Scout Movement and the BSA-affiliated Messengers of Peace will not only advance one-world government but also lead to “sexual activity” among scouts and socialist brainwashing.

“Attendees who are familiar with the goals of the WOSM and the programs of Agenda 21, however, are concerned that the BSA is conditioning Scouts to become little ‘soldiers for socialism’ and world peace,” Chastain writes.

When the Boy Scouts of America voted to admit openly gay youth, it was a sea-change for the organization, which since its inception had trained young boys to serve both God and country and to keep themselves “morally straight.” In other words, to abide by to the principles in His word.

Now that the big (G)od is gone and only a little (g)od who doesn’t demand anything is allowed, it is only a matter of time that “country” also will be invited to take a hike.

The 2013 Jamboree, which was just concluded at the Summit, the Scouts’ new 10,600 acre, half-billion dollar home in West Virginia, was a step toward that end.

The theme was “Go Big,” and indeed it was. One attendee pointed out that it was at least an hour’s walk to get anywhere, and there was no transportation, as there has been at past events, because the unofficial theme of this Jamboree was “sustainability.”

For the uninitiated, sustainability is the hammer the United Nations uses in an attempt to bring all the nations of the world into submission under a perfect “peaceful” one-world government controlled by the “enlightened.”



Unfortunately, these innocent young boys are being indoctrinated into Agenda 21 as they are now required to earn one of two badges: Environmental Science (boring) or the new and exciting Sustainability Badge, which was introduced at the Summit. To help them along this path, there was a Sustainability tent.



The Messengers of Peace originated with the U.N. and is used to focus attention on its work. This initiative was launched by the World Organization of the Scout Movement, which was widely promoted at the Summit along with the BSA’s co-ed Venture program. It appears, the BSA is now laying the groundwork to conform to the goals of the co-ed WOSM.

In many countries this includes co-ed tent assignments, with sexual activity viewed as a “right of passage.” It may not be officially sanctioned, but sex between tent-mates is not frowned upon if the hookups are between scouts near the same age.

All the kids at the Summit participated in a Messenger of Peace Day of Service, which on the surface appears laudable. Attendees who are familiar with the goals of the WOSM and the programs of Agenda 21, however, are concerned that the BSA is conditioning Scouts to become little “soldiers for socialism” and world peace.

There is a big difference between peace and freedom. If the goal is the former, then, over time, one can be conditioned to give up the latter.

Unfortunately, it appears that in the new BSA that is the goal.

Erik Rush: Africa and India Colonized Because Their People Seemed 'Only A Few Steps out of the Trees'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush is upset that Americans may appreciate other (read: inferior) cultures, lamenting that it all started when “the Beatles brought East Indian culture to the West.”

Rush asks: “Why in the world ought America be more like India? It was their culture that gave the British the impression they were only a few steps out of the trees, so India was colonized. The same goes for Africa.”

He goes on to explain that it is all part of a communist conspiracy, of course, that seeks to “insidiously break down our sense of national pride” and establish “slavery to elites.”

Still, for many years, I have puzzled over Americans who become inordinately and superficially enamored of foreign things. We’ve all seen the plight of starry-eyed young American girls who fall in love with a mass media-proffered stereotype of some romantic foreign male, then run off and marry one, only to discover that the man’s culture is frighteningly cloying and patriarchal, sometimes dangerously so. They wind up losing their children to a parental kidnap, or having to escape a sadistic family situation in a misogynistic regime somewhere, coming to the heartbreaking realization that their studly beau was only looking for a quality breeding cow.

We’ve also witnessed the fads that have come and gone from overseas – sometimes not going fast enough – having been brought to light by the media or some celebrity du jour. In the 1960s, the Beatles brought East Indian culture to the West, and the ripples of that introduction are still passing through the lives of Americans in the form of yoga and other such pursuits.



Why in the world ought America be more like India? It was their culture that gave the British the impression they were only a few steps out of the trees, so India was colonized. The same goes for Africa. Contrary to the claim of liberals, these things have far less to do with race than they do with culture. Here, it bears mentioning that the British did not have nearly as easy a time with China. One will also note that in recent years, both India and China have prospered by becoming more like America, rather than the reverse.

To be entirely truthful, I would have no qualms with a one-world government, had the world’s leaders determined that the American paradigm represented the most prudent course to take. But global power players have opted for a collectivist thugocracy in which cheap hustlers, decadent old-money deviants and narcissistic elites will rule like princes over us all.

Americans have the right to take a measure of pride and satisfaction in their accomplishments. It’s taken 50 years for America’s enemies to insidiously break down our sense of national pride and pervert those accomplishments into atrocities with their lies, and the collectivist (some would say communist) movement behind it has been under way for nearly a century. Thus, it will take time and monumental effort to reverse this.

But more than that, it will take the will to do so. The enemy is determined, well-entrenched and possesses the will to do things many Americans cannot yet conceptualize. They have shown that they will go to any lengths to fulfill the leftist agenda, so we must be unapologetic in our resolve and practically militant in the delivery of our message.

America’s founders were willing to risk death to break free from slavery to elites. How many are willing to take the same risk now to prevent us from slipping back into it?

Diana West: Obamacare Will Turn US Into A 'Leading Outpost of the Caliphate'

WorldNetDaily’s Diana West is out with a new column entitled “Huma Abedin: Muslim Brotherhood Princess.”

Of course, since this is WorldNetDaily after all, she somehow managed to link this to Obamacare.

West maintains that the health care reform law means that the Communists were the real winners of the Cold War as the “totalitarian” law creates a “super-state” that will destroy the Republic.

She argues that the “cover-up” of Huma Abedin’s status as “a veritable Muslim Brotherhood princess” is part of a plan to shield Americans from the “Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the federal policy-making chain”: “[Michele] Bachmann was crucified, by Democrats and Republicans alike for asking urgently important questions about national security.”

With our guards down to the Marxist-Muslim conspiracy, Americans will become complacent to the supposed Islamic infiltration of government and the dangers of Obamacare: “don’t worry. We ‘won’ the Cold War. Obamacare, here we come. At this rate, we’ll declare ‘victory’ in the so-called war on terror and, before you know it, become a leading outpost of the caliphate.”

Nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917. Nearly a century later, the U.S. enacted “Obamacare.”

Who won the Cold War again? This is one of the questions I work over in my new book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character” (St. Martin’s Press). Can we realistically claim liberty and free markets triumphed over collectivism when today there is only a thin Senate line trying to fend off Obamacare’s totalitarian intrusions into citizens’ lives? We see perhaps a dozen or so patriots led by conservative ace Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, gallantly mustering forces to defund further enforcement of this government behemoth aborning. (Call your senators and ask them to join – or tell you why they didn’t at the next town hall.) How can we maintain that the republic endured when a centralized super-state has taken its place?

So, once more, who really won the Cold War? The question is better framed when we realize that the battleground where the Free World met Marx was also psychological. Consciously or not, we struggled against an insidious Marxist ideology that was always, at root, an assault on our nation’s character.

The most recent manifestation of victory over the American character shows through the Anthony Weiner-Huma Abedin scandal. This scandal is a paradoxical double whammy of both exposure and cover-up.



True, the barbs of Huma’s ambition – as naked as her husband’s dirty pics – have broken through the gauzy chatter. But cut off from context, they, too, end up perpetuating what is, in fact, the great Huma Abedin cover-up.

It is not enough to analyze Huma Abedin as a “political wife.” Abedin is also a veritable Muslim Brotherhood princess. As such, the ideological implications of her actions – plus her long and privileged access to U.S. policy-making through Hillary Clinton – must be considered, particularly in the context of national security.



If the Abedin-Muslim Brotherhood story rings any bells, it is probably because of Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. Last summer, Bachmann, along with four other House Republicans, raised the issue of Huma Abedin among other examples of possible Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the federal policy-making chain. They asked inspectors general at five departments, including the State Department, to investigate their concerns, but nothing happened – nothing, that is, except that Bachmann was crucified, by Democrats and Republicans alike for asking urgently important questions about national security.

This made the entire subject, already taboo, positively radioactive – with Huma Abedin becoming the poster victim of this supposed “McCarthyism” redux.

End of story. Never mind facts. Never mind also that in his day, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was asking urgently important questions about national security, too.

But don’t worry. We “won” the Cold War. Obamacare, here we come. At this rate, we’ll declare “victory” in the so-called war on terror and, before you know it, become a leading outpost of the caliphate.

Erik Rush: Obama Is Murdering Everyone And I Don't Need Evidence To Prove It

Erik Rush says he is positive that President Obama and his minions are murdering people, and he doesn’t need any proof to back up his charges because requiring evidence is just a “ruse” of the “political left.” He previously wrote a column alleging that the Obama administration had a hand in the murder of a gun enthusiast, while admitting he had “no proof” besides an “inclination.”

Now, much like the debunked Clinton Body Count claims of old, the WorldNetDaily columnist asserts that Obama killed his gay lovers and drowned a woman who may have “come by information on the night of the [Aurora] shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.” According to Rush, Obama also killed journalist Michael Hastings, an identity theft criminal, his dog trainer, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Andrew Breitbart (of course).

Rush insists that he is simply asking questions! This is the age of FEMA camps, Rush writes, after all.

I know it’s typical for those on the political left to demand peer-reviewed studies, videotape and signed affidavits proving the assertions some of us make concerning the machinations of the Obama administration and socialist encroachment at large, but we all are aware by now that this is a diversion. It’s also a good indicator that we’re correct in said assertions. Like the left’s tendency for projection, wherein they accuse the opposition of that in which they are themselves engaged, it’s a fairly transparent ruse.



For example: On June 11, Lord Monckton reported in WND that a U.S. congressman told him the birth certificate for the president released by the White House was “unquestionably a forgery,” and “We all know that.” The congressman went on to cite fear of political retribution as the rationale for most cases of Obama’s political opponents eschewing the subject.

Rather risk-averse when compared to those who founded this nation, and cowardly considering the stakes, but we’ll move on.

There are things that go beyond the pale even of political intrigue and scandal, and there is ample evidence the president has been involved in some of these also. Once again, you’re not going to get peer-reviewed studies, videotape, or signed affidavits here. But the coincidences or confluence of events tend to dispel the idea that these are wild accusations.

In fact, they’re not accusations at all; they’re theories.

There is an entire true crime novel in the case of the Trinity United Church murders, two gay men known to Obama who were killed execution-style in 2007 at a time when charges of homosexuality and drug use were being leveled at the candidate. Years later, as reported in WND, an entire network of closeted professional gay black men at the Chicago church was exposed.

Ancillary to the question of Obama’s eligibility, there was the case of Leiutenant Quarles Harris Jr. (not a military officer; he just had a weird name), a hustler who was also killed execution-style on April 18, 2008, during an investigation into the theft of the passport records of candidate Obama, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton. John Brennan, who became Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and later CIA chief, was also implicated in this case (of the passport records, not the murder).

On Aug. 6, 2012, Jennifer Gallagher, a 46-year-old nurse, drowned mysteriously while vacationing with her family in Iowa. Gallagher had been on the team that attended to victims of the July 20 Aurora, Colo., theater shooting. She was also among staffers who met with President Obama during his highly publicized visit of the shooting victims. Several inconsistencies came to light in the theater shooting accounts and aspects of the subsequent investigation; one can’t help but wonder if Gallagher came by information on the night of the shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.

Then, of course, we have the off-the-chart suspicious death of journalist Michael Hastings on June 18 in a car wreck worthy of any action film. The circumstances surrounding the incident are right out of a political thriller and have all the hallmarks of a staged accident. Hastings was the individual whose reporting brought down the career of Gen. Stanley McChrystal; reportedly under government surveillance, he was also said to be working on a story involving domestic government spying at the time of his death.

So there we have it. There are more than a few other suspicious deaths that some attribute to Obama, from his dog trainer to Andrew Breitbart. I have asserted that the attack on the Libyan mission on Sept. 11, 2012, had its genesis in Obama’s need to “erase” either the administration’s illegal operations in Libya or Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself.

Whether or not the president had a hand in any or all of these may never be known for certain, even if his treason someday becomes common knowledge. What chills the blood in this time of domestic spying, drones, data mining centers and FEMA camps is the possibility that there are those working among us who might actually be willing to kill for this treacherous mobster.

WND: George Soros Behind Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Brotherhood Opposition

In 2011, WorldNetDaily reporter Aaron Klein warned that George Soros, by way of the International Crisis Group ICG (Soros is a member of its executive committee), aided the Muslim Brotherhood and even authored several articles alleging that Soros was helping the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.

But now that the Muslim Brotherhood was thrown out of power in Egypt, Klein is out with a new “exposé” on Soros’ alleged connections to their opponents.

Klein even cites the International Crisis Group as a way to link Soros to the new government…the same group which Klein claimed tied Soros to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Essentially, Soros and the ICG had a hand both in the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power and also its ouster.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the favored candidate to head a transitional government in Egypt, was a longtime member of a George Soros-funded “crisis” group with deep ties to the Middle East revolutions.

Soros himself is one of eight members of the executive committee of the International Crisis Group, or ICG.



ElBaradei is also the reported pick of the main alliance of liberal and left-wing parties youth groups that led the anti-Morsi protests.

He is a former United Nations nuclear agency chief and a Nobel Prize winner for his work as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

ElBaradei was also a longtime member of the ICG board alongside Soros.

Bauer: Anti-Gay Activists May Be Thrown in Jail Following DOMA Ruling

Gary Bauer is joining other anti-gay activists in warning that they should prepare to face jail time as a result of gay rights victories at the Supreme Court. In the Washington Times today, Bauer claims that people who oppose same-sex marriage will “find themselves in court” and religious people may soon be “fined or jailed” because of their views.

The ultimate goal of homosexual-rights activists is not to legalize same-sex marriage. Rather, it is to silence those who disagree with them and, if necessary, to throw them in jail. In a world in which the biblical viewpoint of marriage is demonized, it does not take a constitutional scholar to predict that soon those who hold that view will find themselves in court.

How did we get to the point where homosexual-rights activists would be clamoring to redefine society’s oldest and most reliable institution and people of faith would be worried about being fined or jailed for teaching their faith?

A lot had to happen, and it’s not all the left’s fault. It took the breakdown of traditional marriage. It took churches deciding that they could accommodate the homosexual culture or ignore it altogether. It took businesses placing their bottom lines ahead of morality. It took politicians who assured voters on the campaign trail that they would protect marriage and then did nothing to keep their promises once they arrived in Washington.

As a society, we have lost the understanding of what marriage is and what the consequences will be if we redefine it. Nobody has the right to redefine marriage. Doing so ignores research that makes clear that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. Nobody has the right to force children to grow up without the unique contributions that a mother and a father provide.

Not to be outdone, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily claims the Supreme Court may take away Christians’ right to vote:

Now where do we go from here?

What’s next?

It’s obvious, isn’t it?

The Supreme Court virtually declared an open season on those with whom the 5-4 majority disagree.

We are no longer relevant. What we think no longer counts. We are, after all, bigots who only want to demean homosexuals.

So when does the persecution begin?

When are we stripped of our citizen status, the right to vote, the right to bear arms and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties? Isn’t that next?

If not, why not?

It was just 10 years ago to the day of this decision that the Supreme Court issued another sweeping ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case. It struck down anti-sodomy laws in that state and, effectively, across the country.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in that case that the ruling would inevitably lead to same-sex marriage and polygamy. The cultural establishment scoffed at that opinion. It mocked Scalia. Why?

Because only 10 years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was practically unheard of. It was a laughable proposition.

That’s how quickly the 6,000-year-old institution of marriage was officially and arbitrarily redefined with the imprimatur of five high priests and priestesses wearing black robes.

Will it take another 10 years for the retribution against marriage defenders to begin? I doubt it. My guess is the plans are already being drafted.

As for me and my house, however, we will continue to serve the Lord – the author of marriage and everything else.

WND: Obama Wants Kids 'Brainwashed into Believing They're Homosexuals' and 'Emulating Street Thugs'

Columnist Mychal Massie is convinced President Obama is turning kids into gay street thugs through public school brainwashing…and it probably goes without saying that the venue he has chosen to publicize this revelation is WorldNetDaily. In his column, Massie compares Obama to “the serpent that beguiled Eve in the Garden” and one of the snakes Saint Patrick drove out of Ireland, before pouncing on the bogus claim that Obama made comments attacking parochial schools while visiting Northern Ireland. 

“True to his petulant, narcissistic sociopathy, he chose to lash out at the Catholic Church,” Massie writes, adding that “Obama would rather have children from grades K through 5 to grow up with instruction about homosexuality” and learn “about abortion and birth control devices.”

Besides learning about homosexuality and abortion, according to Massie, kids won’t learn much else in Obama’s schools: “He wants children to grow up in failing schools with poorly educated teachers providing even less instruction than they themselves had received…. Having children brainwashed into believing they’re homosexuals and lesbians, emulating street thugs and graduating from high school with minimal reading, math and comprehension skills is not what we want for our progeny.”

Saint Patrick may have been recognized for driving the snakes out of Ireland, but this past week one of them slithered back in. Obama is the personification of an elapid that is now without the appendages some believe the serpent that beguiled Eve in the Garden had possessed before it was made to slither upon the ground. That said, he has not shed the character of the personage incarnate in that first serpent.



But Obama sees Catholic schools as the bane to social stability and antagonistic toward his worldview and social order. He said, “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden – that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”

I am convinced that his words were carefully chosen and intended to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church while providing him a thin veneer of deniability.

Obama is deeply resentful of the stand the Catholic Church has taken against his health-care legislation. And true to his petulant, narcissistic sociopathy, he chose to lash out at the Catholic Church before the audience he did.

Obama had his educational purview shaped by the Marxist pedophile Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright. That does not mean we should allow his views to corrupt ours.

Catholic-school education remains one of the finest educations children can receive. I applaud the verbiage of the archbishop when he said, “Catholic education provides young people with a wonderful opportunity to grow up with Jesus.” Obama would rather have children from grades K through 5 to grow up with instruction about homosexuality. He would rather have children grow up as his daughters (according to the words from his mouth), learning about abortion and birth control devices. He wants children to grow up in failing schools with poorly educated teachers providing even less instruction than they themselves had received.

But for those of us who believe that the Word of God is final and that Christ-centered education is critical, the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:33 are undeniable truth. Paul wrote, “Be not deceived: evil company corrupts good morals.” Having children brainwashed into believing they’re homosexuals and lesbians, emulating street thugs and graduating from high school with minimal reading, math and comprehension skills is not what we want for our progeny.

Murray: Gays are 'The Most Violent of the Abusers of Children in Our Society'

Like other conservative writers, William Murray sees the 1950s as a utopian age, only to be ruined by struggles for civil rights later on. He writes today in WorldNetDaily that America is now suffering the consequences of conservatives having “lost’ the culture war “in the 1960s in the midst of bean bag chairs, lava lamps, cheap wine and marijuana smoke” to the left and the gays.

Murray laments that while gays are “the most violent of the abusers of children in our society,” they “are treated as a protected class” and helped usher in America’s “moral decline.”

He also blamed Social Security and Medicare for society’s ills—again—and declared that Obamacare is “the final blow” to the American family.

Loving Christian couples often cannot adopt children in the current culture because they are declared bigots for not accepting anal sex as normal. Homosexuals, the most violent of the abusers of children in our society, are treated as a protected class. State welfare offices pay women not to marry the fathers of their children, and the elderly receive funds to disengage from their children and grandchildren and move to warmer climates.

Courts have ruled that a girl 13 or younger can buy an abortion drug – the “morning after” pill – over the counter, and use this powerful drug without permission of parents or a doctor.



During the 1960s, the drug and “gay” counter-culture of San Francisco flourished, and nude bathing at a park in Austin, Texas, began. New York City in the 1960s was far worse than portrayed in the movie “The Cross and the Switchblade”; the city was a hell hole on the edge of bankruptcy. Anti-war protests encouraged by money from the Soviet KGB filled the streets of cities with angry youth, and a communist by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President John F. Kennedy.



The first major blow to the family was Social Security, the second Medicare and the third welfare. These programs drove Grandma and Grandpa out of the home and to Florida. Free from the responsibility of caring for aging parents, the “me generation” was able to concentrate on pleasure and material success. Religion was seen as simply an impediment to pre-marital sex, divorce, alcohol, drug use, gambling and materialism. The final blow is Obamacare, which takes away even the responsibility of caring for children from families. The safety net is so broad that the family is simply no longer necessary.



Yes, I am very politically incorrect to those on both sides of the fence. The left will say I am gay bashing and against the “progress” of individual freedom from moral restraints and economic worries. The social conservative right will say I have abandoned prayer for our schools. Neither view is true. I am simply being honest about the date the cultural war was lost. The drift to defeat did not begin with the removal of prayer from the schools. The cultural war was lost in the 1960s in the midst of bean bag chairs, lava lamps, cheap wine and marijuana smoke. That loss has led America to its current financial, political and moral decline.
Syndicate content

WorldNetDaily Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Friday 09/12/2014, 10:40am
WorldNetDaily columnists must be running out of dictators to compare President Obama to, as Burt Prelutsky today likened Obama to John Hinckley, arguing the president “is every bit as delusional” as the man who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan. Prelutsky started his column by talking about how he would refuse to take a bullet for Obama or other Democratic president if he were in the Secret Service, which then led to a brief rant about how the “Hollywood bimbos” who recently had their photos hacked had it coming. There are any number of jobs that I couldn’... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 09/10/2014, 11:20am
It appears that in 2016, there will be two GOP presidential candidates who have worked as columnists for WorldNetDaily: Rick Santorum and, as announced today, Ben Carson. Back in July, Carson sat down with WND editor Joseph Farah to discuss why he believes that drug reform laws are meant to distract from Benghazi and that President Obama is a Leninist. As we have noted on previous occasions, WND is a birther, racist outlet which has suggested that Obama is a secretly gay, Muslim, communist, demon-possessed dictator who is setting up concentration camps and ... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 09/10/2014, 10:35am
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, along with other Muslim-American groups, has repeatedly condemned the actions of ISIS, but WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah holds their denunciations of ISIS as proof that the two groups are actually allies. (Of course, had CAIR not condemned ISIS, Farah then would have said that their silence was proof that they support them). Farah writes today that CAIR and ISIS are both extremist groups that only differ in their “tactics,” arguing that “it’s like the difference between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. The goals are the... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 09/09/2014, 1:52pm
The right-wing media is so eager to find evidence that Central American child migrants are bringing diseases into the U.S. that they have now found an outbreak to blame on the kids. The only problem? There is absolutely no evidence of a connection. WorldNetDaily breathlessly reports today on speculation by right-wing radio host Michael Savage that an increase in patients with a severe respiratory illness in two hospitals in Kansas City and Chicago is linked to Central American children: On his show, Savage also excoriated the government agency, stating, “The CDC is claiming they don... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 09/09/2014, 11:33am
William Gheen of the anti-immigrant Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) told WorldNetDaily yesterday that undocumented immigrants are a greater threat to America than ISIS, but that President Obama will still encourage ISIS to attack America so that his party wins the upcoming elections and he can impose a dictatorship. Gheen echoed the recent comments of Pat Buchanan, who said on the Laura Ingraham show that Democratic-voting immigrants are a greater threat to the country than ISIS terrorists. Gheen also told WND that Mexico’s efforts to stop the influx of Central American child... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 09/08/2014, 12:00pm
In an interview with WorldNetDaily over the weekend, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said the immigrant “invasion” threatens the stability and future of America because it may undermine the electoral prospects of the Republican Party. Warning that immigrants are liberals “who are not accustomed to our ideas of self-government and limited government” and “expect government to take care of them,” Schlafly said they will lead to the demise of the GOP, bringing America down with it: “Well, it might take 50 years, but meanwhile the Republican Party... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 09/08/2014, 10:55am
Religious Right pastor Jim Garlow writes today in WorldNetDaily that he is sick and tired of hearing people on TV “who are known for their willfully sinful and ‘degeneres’ practices” praise the late comedian Joan Rivers, when in fact they should be worried she is doomed to Hell because of her “degrading” and “mean” sense of humor. In fact, Garlow knows that Rivers is bound for Hell unless she apologized for her “potty mouth.” On TV, I have listened to the comments about her life from people who, among other things, have been... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 09/05/2014, 10:45am
Alan Keyes has joined a growing chorus of far-right activists who claim that President Obama is secretly supporting ISIS, writing today in WorldNetDaily that Obama administration officials believe “the enemy is not ISIS, but the life and liberty of the people of the United States.” Keyes writes that Obama’s remarks on ISIS are “calculated to obfuscate the charge of treason that ought to be duly brought and tried if and when a serious investigation shows it to be a fact that that Obama and his cohorts aided and abetted the terrorist forces... MORE >