WorldNetDaily

Ben Carson: The People Will Stop Obama's Third Term!

WorldNetDaily has become infatuated with a bizarre conspiracy theory that President Obama will remain in office after his second term expires, and today the far-right outlet, best known for promoting birther claims, decided to ask likely GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson the question on everyone’s minds: “Who would stop Obama from remaining in office past his second term?”

Rather than just dismiss the absurd statement outright, Carson said that the people will rise up to defend the Constitution’s limitation on a president serving more than two terms in office against Obama.

President Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017 – or does he? The Internet’s abuzz with talk about the myriad of ways Obama might seek to extend his White House role – sparked in part by radio conjecture from conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh – and now at least one likely presidential candidate, Ben Carson, has weighed in to say: Don’t worry, Obama will leave.

First, the question from WND to Carson: “Who would stop Obama from remaining in office past his second term?”

And Carson’s reply, via email: “We the people would oppose it through our Constitution, the 22nd Amendment of which forbids more than two terms. Even some of the timid people in the other two branches of government would be willing to stand behind the fortified walls of our Constitution.”

Sounds reasonable – but the buzz persists.

Birther Joseph Farah Wants PFAW Help To Block Third Obama Term. Let’s Make A Deal.

Last Friday, Miranda noted that birther, conspiracy theorist par excellence, and WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah was publicizing one of the more ridiculous right-wing scare-stories: that President Obama will refuse to leave the White House after his second term is over in January 2017. Farah said in a column last week that “there’s great concern” about the possibility “out there across the fruited plain.”

In classic Fox News and far-right trolling style, Farah said he didn’t actually believe Obama would refuse to leave office, but was just asking questions: why should we should take a departure for granted given what he calls Obama’s “contempt of the law” and “disrespect for American tradition” – and “the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office.”  

Farah was seemingly not pleased that RWW poked fun at his column, responding over the weekend with an appeal to another unimpeachable source of information on the president’s plans, Rush Limbaugh.  Limbaugh, says Farah, responded to a Friday caller raising the same question by spinning out a hypothetical scenario in which Obama refuses to go. Here’s Limbaugh:

“So as a service to the nation, he is going to forget the 22nd Amendment and either not leave office or run for re-election himself as the Democrat nominee. Just imagine that scenario. I don’t care how unreal it sounds, how unbelievable it sounds. Imagine it.

What would anybody do? What would Mitch McConnell do? What would John Boehner do?

Adds Farah,

“There’s simply no organized opposition to Obama’s illegal, criminal actions and behavior. He’s getting away with all of it. There are no serious repercussions. No political price. No major media opposition. Few judicial rulings that worry him. Not one political, religious or social institution that is holding him accountable – least of all the Republican Party."

Farah was apparently bothered that Miranda’s RWW post did not include a pledge that People For the American Way would “use all of its influence and legal firepower” to stop Obama from chucking the Constitution in a White House power-grab. Of course we don’t take the possibility seriously, but since Farah seems to, let’s offer him a proposition: If President Obama refuses to allow a constitutional transfer of power to his successor, we will join you at the barricades. If the American republic miraculously survives, you will stop polluting the public discourse with toxic nonsense. Deal? 

Paranoia-Rama: Muslim Infiltration, Gay End Times And Liberal Killers

Now that gay people and the Muslim Brotherhood have taken over the government, conservative pundits have a lot of thoughts that they want to share — scary thoughts about anti-Christian persecution and a (non-existent) Egyptian court case that may throw two American leaders behind bars.

Joseph Farah Is 'Just Asking': Will Obama Actually Leave Office In January 2017?

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah personally believes that President Obama will leave office when his second term is up in January 2017, but senses that “there is great concern out there across the fruited plain” that the president will try to stay in office permanently, so he evidently considers it his journalistic duty to explore why this conspiracy theory may be true.

“[W]hy do we assume Obama will step aside willingly from the presidency following an election in 2016?” Farah asks in a column today. “I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why.”

Farah then goes on to cite evidence of Obama’s possible power grab, including that the president that “respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power,” has said “he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office,” and, of course, “the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office.”

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

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

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


And then, of course, there’s the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office. In fact, if he’s telling the truth about his parentage and the “birth certificate” he produced after years of demands from the public is real, he could not possibly be a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.

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

I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why. And judging from the number of questions I’m getting along these lines from the public, I’d say there’s great concern out there across the fruited plain.

Maybe we assume he will respectfully leave office after two terms because he has publicly said he would. In 2013, Obama said he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office.

But that begs the question of whether Obama is truthful.

Again, do I think Obama will leave office in January 2017? Yes I do.

But, with a track record like this – and, actually much worse – should we simply take it for granted?

Phyllis Schlafly Worries Immigrants 'Don't Want To Be An American And Abide By Our Constitutional Laws'

In an interview with WorldNetDaily’s radio network posted today, Phyllis Schlafly declared that she was “tired of” Republican presidential “losers,” and said that at last week’s CPAC she was impressed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

In particular, Schlafly liked Jindal’s comments about immigrants not becoming “hyphenated Americans,” saying that “these illegals…don’t want to be assimilated into America.”

“I also thought a very good speech was made by Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who covered a lot of important issues, and particularly the fact that we do not want a lot of these illegals to be assimilated, and they don’t want to be assimilated into America,” she said. “I think anybody that’s let into this country for permanent residency should want to be an American, and if they don’t want to be an American and abide by our constitutional laws, we shouldn’t let them in.”

WND Pundit: Net Neutrality Will Destroy The First Amendment, 'It's All Poop'

Tamara Colbert of Mama Grizzly Radio took to WorldNetDaily today to blast “Swami Obama” for his support for net neutrality, or as she calls it, “net brutality.”

Colbert, who seems completely unaware of the principle behind net neutrality, baselessly alleged that the Federal Communications Commission’s new rules will enable the government to “regulate speech on the Internet,” telling readers to “kiss the First Amendment goodbye, right behind the rest of the Constitution.”

Warning that net neutrality will help Obama “brutalize Americans” and transform “America into a socialist utopia no better than what Hugo Chavez did to Venezuela or Castro’s Cuba,” she wrote that Obama is acting like an abuser who beats his spouse in order “to control you.”

“It’s all poop – everything the federal government touches turns to poop – health care, airport security, education, the IRS, the EPA, the federal courts … and now the Internet,” Colbert said. “It’s time to stop the abuse and clean up the poop.”

Last week the FCC ruled in favor of Net Neutrality, which is anything but – according to the two opposing FCC commissioners who, dare I say, are heroes who tried to alert the public as to the tyranny once again about to be forced upon us for the sake of the greater good. Ajit Pai and Mike O’Reilly, the two Republican commissioners, said that these new rules will crush innovation, increases taxes and fees and finally give the FCC policing power over the Internet. This isn’t Net Neutrality; it’s net brutality!

What is more insidious, which many of us on the conservative side predicted, is that progressives see this as a victory enalbing [sic] them to now control and regulate speech on the Internet. Let the beatings continue, as we kiss the First Amendment goodbye, right behind the rest of the Constitution in the toilet of government-run anything. The most ironic and idiotic statement came from Commissioner Mignon Clyburn who said that America’s “Framers would be pleased” with the 332-page plan (to destroy the Internet).



The deception isn’t just Houdini sleight of hand, but that of an abuser – who lures you in with all the niceties and gifts for months of wooing, only to backhand you at the first chance he gets to remind you where your place is in his world. At first you’re shocked and try to justify that he was just tired; had a bad day; didn’t really mean it. You shake it off because the package looks so good, and everyone else thinks he’s wonderful, so you wonder if it’s “you.” That’s hope.

Before you know it, the emotional and physical abuse is spattered in between the gifts – which come less frequently now and typically get thrown at you, like scraps from the table, to keep you hanging by a sheer thread that everything is OK. Now your abuser thinks that you like the beatings because you don’t speak up. Your silence is a deafening seal of approval for his sadistic treatment of you, and from here things only get worse. He doesn’t really love you; he wants to control you. Here’s the change.

Net Neutrality is anything but neutral; it’s biased. Swami Obama and his administration are out to brutalize Americans – see how generous he has been with the wooing of America. He said a lot of things on the campaign trail in 2007 that hoodwinked many to fall in love with the concept of the first black president. Meanwhile, he is thinking, as most abusers do, that he just has to be nice and kind to gain control of the relationship.

Let’s face it: The American people who have supported Swami Obama are traumatized by being abused for more than six years and the progressive beat-down that lasted for another 90 years prior to Obama. The free stuff was there to get everyone hooked – free Internet, free phones, food stamps, affordable health care, unlimited unemployment benefits and free community college. When millions of Americans stood up to say “no” to the abuse, they got backhanded by the mainstream media, progressives on Capitol Hill (both sides of the aisle mind you) and Hollywood hacks, until they fell back in line, albeit a bit worse for wear, discouraged and demoralized. And just like magic, the swami didn’t have his hand on any of it. The scars from emotional abuse don’t leave fingerprints.

Net Neutrality is a major step in this screwed-up relationship to fully control an abused populace into believing that suddenly now everyone is going to have free Internet. Only now the Swami is gearing up for his last trick – he’s got less than two years to finish fundamentally transforming America into a socialist utopia no better than what Hugo Chavez did to Venezuela or Castro’s Cuba.



Seriously, does anyone think that the Thomas Edison light bulb or a toilet that used enough water to actually flush poop down was a direct threat to society? Seriously? I’m laughing as I write this because the key connection here is POOP. It’s all poop – everything the federal government touches turns to poop – health care, airport security, education, the IRS, the EPA, the federal courts … and now the Internet.

It’s time to stop the abuse and clean up the poop.

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.
Syndicate content

WorldNetDaily Posts Archive

Miranda Blue, Monday 06/01/2015, 4:08pm
In an interview with WorldNetDaily this weekend, conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly declared that the U.S.’s plans to take in refugees from Muslim countries, such as some who are fleeing Syria’s civil war, is in fact part of President Obama’s “war on America” and an attempt to help Muslims “take over the world and establish their caliphate.” “I don’t think he should let any Muslims in this country,” Schlafly said. “There’s no reason why they should come in.” President Obama is instigating a war on the United... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 06/01/2015, 12:20pm
In interviews with WorldNetDaily today, Michele Bachmann, Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter claim that the increase in the number of Americans identifying as social liberals is the result of immigration. People who identify as social liberals, the three explain, reject conservative and Christian values, and therefore aren’t true Americans. Bachmann is especially upset, lamenting that “it is severely frowned upon to suggest new immigrants join America’s predominant Christian religion.” For the first time, Gallup found the number of Americans describing their views on... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 06/01/2015, 11:55am
Huma Abedin, a senior aide to Hillary Clinton, has long been the target of a smear campaign by right-wing commentators who claim that she is aiding terrorists and a secret agent of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, a myth that made its way into the halls of Congress thanks to then-Rep. Michele Bachmann. Bachmann’s claims, which were echoed by a small handful of her colleagues, were so bizarre and unfounded that they were roundly criticized by her fellow Republicans.  But lacking evidence hasn’t stopped outlets such as WorldNetDaily from repeating them, as today the... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 06/01/2015, 11:35am
Conservative radio host Gina Loudon published a column in WorldNetDaily today about how various life experiences have changed her previously doctrinaire views on a series of issues. For example, Loudon explains that her views on homosexuality changed after her encounters with openly gay friends and family members. However, Loudon said that having Muslim neighbors “who seemed friendly and were good neighbors” did not change her suspicion that they were really faux-families working for ISIS. “A ‘nice’ Muslim family was part of a ring of Muslims here to recruit... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 05/26/2015, 1:10pm
Over the weekend, WorldNetDaily columnist Lord Christopher Monckton wrote a column addressing the pressing question: “Are Obama and the hard left of the Devil?” Fortunately for us, Monckton goes on to answer this question: Yes, yes they are! Monckton claims that by supporting gay rights and climate science, President Obama and liberals are leading to countless deaths and pushing lies on the public. “The charitable conclusion is that they are of the devil, that they are under the controlling influence of the father of lies, that they are his unwitting or unwilling mouthpieces... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Monday 05/18/2015, 11:05am
Chuck Norris, who warned of “1,000 years of darkness” if President Obama won his 2012 re-election campaign, writes today that “Obama has literally helped build the environment for the Apocalypse, as defined by both Muslims and Christians.” Norris tells WorldNetDaily readers in his weekly column that it is “difficult to believe that a single president could make more international Middle East fiascos in a few short years.” (Really?) According to Norris, the president is bringing Muslim refugees into the U.S. and encouraging undocumented immigrants to commit... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 05/15/2015, 11:50am
Riffing off Martin Niemöller’s famous Nazi-era “First They Came for the Socialists…” passage, Religious Right activist Bradlee Dean has posted his own poem on WorldNetDaily titled “And Then They Came For Marriage...” Dean writes that Supreme Court decisions striking down state-sponsored prayer in school, decriminalizing abortion and legalizing same-sex marriage will eventually lead to a Nazi-style holocaust of Christians. When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolf Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the Protestant churches in... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Thursday 05/14/2015, 11:00am
Conservative talk show host Jesse Lee Peterson told WorldNetDaily in an interview today that African-American “civil-rights leaders” are “worse than the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads combined,” blaming them for the recent riots in Baltimore. WND notes that Peterson believes “that African-Americans are worse off now than they were before the civil rights movement.” The right-wing pundit told the outlet that African Americans can only make progress once they “overcome their false sense of victimhood and stop blaming whites.” “Modern-day civil... MORE >