On December 6, President Obama issued a memorandum stating that he was "directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons," an initiative that includes combating criminalization of LGBT status by foreign governments and enhancing efforts to protect LGBT asylum seekers.
WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh, who is apparently its correspondent from Bizarro World, offered this, um, unique interpretation of the memo in a December 7 article headlined "Obama offers plan for U.S. to be global LGBT sex cop: Wants to import homosexuals with special asylum privileges":
The Obama administration has announced it intends to make the United States the global sex cop, with plans to try to intervene in the workings of other nations where homosexuality is not promoted as well as plans to create special provisions for homosexuals and those with other lifestyle choices to gain special admittance to the U.S.
Specifically, his plan is to try to intervene in other nation's internal operations where the homosexual lifestyle choice is at risk. That would happen through U.S. government's agencies that would "strengthen existing efforts to effectively combat the criminalization by foreign governments of LGBT status or conduct and to expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct."
Further, special access to the United States needs to be provided to any "LGBT" person, Obama explains.
Contrary to Unruh's claim that "any 'LGBT' person" will get "special access to the United States," according to the memorandum, it specifically states that "LGBT refugees and asylum seekers have equal access to protection and assistance, particularly in countries of first asylum."
Unruh's suggestion that trying to get other countries to not persecute LGBT people is the same as "promoting" homosexuality and serving as the "global sex cop" is another Bizarro World interpretation. He also resorts to false anti-gay talking points in referring to homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" and portraying the Obama administration's efforts as "interven[ing] in other nation's internal operations where the homosexual lifestyle choice is at risk" and "enhancements ... for those who support the alternative sexual lifestyle choices."
Anti-Muslim activists have attacked the new TLC reality show All-American Muslim as "propaganda," "a video version of jihad," and "A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie." Television critics, meanwhile, have praised the show for portraying the diversity of the American Muslim community.
WorldNetDaily's Phil Elmore used his November 16 column to call for the violent removal of the Occupy Wall Street protesters from their encampments. Elmore wrote that law enforcement should "[b]ring flame-throwers" and be "prepared to beat with truncheons and shoot with rubber bullets every last filthy hippie." He also called the Occupy movement a "cancer" and warned that it "will infect us all if we do not sterilize it now."
The right-wing media have been conducting a relentless smear campaign against Occupy Wall Street, calling protesters "lunatics" and "parasites" and comparing them to the Unabomber.
This call for violent action against the protesters does not come in a vacuum. On November 15, police in Seattle used pepper spray on an 84-year-old, a pregnant woman, and other participants in Occupy Seattle. Last month, an Iraq war veteran suffered a skull fracture after he was hit by a police projectile at Occupy Oakland.
From the WorldNetDaily column:
This is no longer a question of freedom of speech. This has long ago ceased to be an issue of the right to assemble. No American citizen has the right to terrorize and threaten his fellow Americans in this way. No mob of Americans should be permitted to endanger and to harass the public the way these hateful "Occupy" hippies have done for months.
Call out the National Guard. Turn on the fire hoses. Send bulldozers. Bring flame-throwers, for pity's sake. Men and women who give a damn about their country, wearing Hazmat suits and respiratory gear, empowered by the lawful government of this nation, should be marching in ranks on every Obamaville this very moment, prepared to beat with truncheons and shoot with rubber bullets every last filthy hippie. Put a stop to this miserable army of miscreants before they are permitted to rape, infect, or ruin one more person.
The "Occupy" movement is a cancer. The "occupiers" are criminals and terrorists. The Obamaville is a creeping death made of Nylon, placards and human waste. This movement is a third-world rot that will infect us all if we do not sterilize it now.
While there's plenty of well-deserved blame to go around for Penn State's handling of the horrific abuse scandal at their school, some conservatives have determined that there's a larger villain that deserves the lion's share of responsibility for what happened.
Opponents of equal rights for gays and lesbians often resort to the canard that tolerance of homosexuality damages the very fabric of our nation and does nebulous (though grave) harm to families and society as a whole.
Because their predictions of things like "anarchy" in New York in the event of the legalization of gay marriage never pan out, anti-gay activists are forced to make absurd leaps of logic in order to blame acceptance of homosexuality for a whole host of society's ills.
Enter Joseph Farah, editor of conservative website WorldNetDaily, who holds the impressive distinction of managing to stand out as a crackpot even among the fever swamps of far-right conservative online media.
In a WND column titled, "Penn State: A comfortable place for child rape," Farah says, "There are new rules in effect regarding what types of sexual behavior is appropriate and lawful." Farah posits that these "new rules" have moved "the lines between right and wrong sexual behavior" and that these "sudden moral changes ... may explain why our system failed the victimized children in the sex scandal at Penn State."
The "new rules" Farah refers to are, predictably, the fact that homosexuality is no longer viewed as a "disorder" and a "perversion," but is accepted (or, as Farah puts it, "considered a virtue").
Sean Hannity hosted WorldNetDaily (WND) founder Joseph Farah on his Fox News show to discuss whether the allegations against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain are valid "from a journalistic perspective." Yet Farah has a long history of outrageous statements, smears, and conspiracy theories.
WorldNetDaily today published an "exclusive" opinion piece by Breitbart blogger Dr. Gina Loudon and Dr. Dathan Paterno, in which they engage in what can charitably be called armchair psychology regarding sexual harassment allegations against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.
Loudon and Paterno purport to profile two types of sexual predators, declare that Cain doesn't fit those profiles, and conclude that he must not have committed the acts he's been accused of. By contrast, they claim that Sharon Bialek -- one of Cain's accusers -- perfectly fits the profile of "contrived victim/false accuser." The piece misses basic facts about the accusations levied against Cain, and furthers a leading line of right-wing pushback in defense of Cain: blaming, shaming, and attacking the victims.
The piece begins by suggesting that Bialek's accusations against Cain are "unlikely" and "impossible," adding that they "read more like a fable than historical fact." This is followed immediately by a paragraph which tells readers that there is "nothing" to prove wrongdoing by Cain "except a woman's report of an egregious act." In fact, the National Restaurant Association has confirmed that it paid $45,000 to one of Cain's accusers, a former employee of his at the when he was its CEO. The NRA said that the woman complained of "several instances" of "inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances," though the settlement was made "without any admission of liability." While Cain disputed the allegations at the time, that data point would be one of those "historical fact[s]" Loudon and Paterno were looking for.
The writers then describe the profiles of two different types of sexual predators -- the "Casanova," the suave and powerful but deeply insecure man who uses sex to boost his ego, and the rapist, who "comes on bold, fast, with no foreplay, no tenderness, no invitation." Loudon and Paterno then declare that since Cain's alleged behavior doesn't fit either profile, the accusations against him "defy common sense."
The evidence that Cain's accuser is making an impossible claim? Bialek said that Cain tried to force himself on her in a car, but then "took 'no' for an answer." Loudon and Paterno conclude that those two events "simply cannot co-exist." So Cain isn't the rapist. He also allegedly upgraded her hotel room but didn't visit her in the room or try to romance her, so he can't be the "Casanova," according to the writers.
The decision of federal judge Sharon Blackburn allowing several sections of Alabama's controversial immigration law to go into effect has two WorldNetDaily contributors celebrating and comparing opponents of the law to Civil War-era slave owners who opposed emancipation.
The Alabama law, H.B. 56, is a draconian law and Blackburn refused to allow some of the provisions to go into effect, such as the provisions making it a crime for an undocumented immigrant to apply for or perform work, making it a crime to conceal or harbor an undocumented immigrant, and barring employers from failing to hire a U.S. citizen while employing an undocumented worker.
But it does allow certain provisions to go into effect, including ones that were struck down in Arizona that require immigrants to carry immigration papers and require law enforcement officers to determine the citizenship of any person they stop when they suspect the person is here illegally and one that forbids Alabama courts from enforcing most contracts entered into by undocumented immigrants.
The decision is being cheered by WorldNetDaily contributors Gina Loudon and Dathan Paterno. In a column headlined "American patriots: Stand with Alabama!" Loudon and Paterno call for a "Buycott" of Arizona products in celebration of the "strictest-in-the country illegal immigration law" which is causing "illegals [to] fle[e] the state in droves."
In his September 25 WorldNetDaily column, Vox Day declared that "Many, if not most, Americans view the mass invasion of their country by Mexicans and others about as favorably as the citizens of Czechoslovakia, Holland and France viewed the mass immigration of Germans into their countries during the 1940s." From the column:
The various myths about Ellis Island notwithstanding, the American people have always been moderately anti-immigration. While their political elite has studiously labored to replace them with a new and more dependent people for the last 50 years, Americans have never accepted the general concept of open immigration from around the world. More importantly, they know they have been lied to from the very beginning by the advocates of immigration, and they understand that neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party can be trusted to defend their interests versus the interests of the corporations that seek the ever-lower wage rates that come with the expansion of the labor supply.
However, this American distaste for mass immigration was somewhat concealed by the credit-driven real-estate boom of the previous 20 years. What did it really matter if families of low income, criminally-inclined immigrants from Mexico, Somalia or Pakistan established a beachhead in your neighborhood, so long as you could sell your house and move to a larger house in a nicer neighborhood where you wouldn't have to live next to the newcomers? That this led to the hollowing out of the cities, suburban sprawl, racial segregation and a doubling in the number of vehicles per family was only considered a problem by the sort of hand-wringing social scientists who would tend to prefer it if everyone lived in a totalitarian hive-city ruled by social scientists.
But the relocation retreat ceased to be an option as housing prices began to fall and homeowners who were under water on their mortgages became permanently locked into their locations. Don't like living near a neighborhood that has gradually devolved into an approximation of a dirty, crime-ridden third-world nation? Default or deal with it.
Housing and jobs are two reasons why Republicans reacted so negatively to Rick Perry's declaration that immigrant children need to be educated because otherwise "they will become a drag on our society." Most Republicans, most Americans, don't want Texas to educate immigrant children. They want Texas to send them back to their homelands. It wasn't so much the fact that Perry favors taxpayer spending on immigrant education, or even his claim that those who don't are heartless, that caused such revulsion as his obvious assumption that immigrants and their children will never leave America.
Many, if not most, Americans view the mass invasion of their country by Mexicans and others about as favorably as the citizens of Czechoslovakia, Holland and France viewed the mass immigration of Germans into their countries during the 1940s. The effects of this invasion are not something the political elite are able to hide behind platitudes or rejiggering the official size of the labor force because they are inescapable in the lives of those who don't live in walled communities or summer in the Hamptons.
World Net Daily writer Aaron Klein is lashing out at new White House Director of Special Innovation Jonathan Greenblatt by typing the innocuous words "Soros," "social justice" and "Google" over, and over, and over again.
Klein invokes right-wing bogeyman George Soros a total of eight times in his piece, pointing to Greenblatt's past affiliation with the Aspen Institute. Klein conveniently leaves out the fact that David Koch is a member of the Aspen board.
Indeed, Klein claims that The Aspen Institute "works closely with Soros and even was reportedly used by the billionaire in a failed attempt to engineer the defeat of President Bush in the 2004 elections." Klein indicates that it was "used by" Soros when he held a meeting there in 2004. However, The Aspen Institute clearly shows that it has conference centers that are "popular meeting places for outside groups" and can be rented out by anyone.
Klein also erroneously claims that in addition to his White House position, Greenblatt "doubles as the director of a social justice group funded by George Soros." Greenblatt resigned from The Aspen Institute for his White House position.
Aaron Klein also lashed out about the fact that Greenblatt founded "a civic service company" - actually non-profit organization All For Good - that "works in partnership with Google" and that Greenblatt "has several ties to Google." It's not clear what is problematic about "ties to Google." All For Good was recently acquired by the Points of Light Institute, which was founded in honor of former President George H.W. Bush and whose current chairman is Neil Bush - not exactly a radical association. Incidentally, Google just held a Republican presidential debate with Fox News.
WorldNetDaily spent the 9-11 anniversary weekend mocking and bashing a Gallup poll of American Muslims by questioning the poll's motives and attacking the head of the Gallup division that conducted the poll.
The September 10 article by Michael Carl, carrying the sneering headline "Guess who thinks they are the victims," began:
A new poll taken by Muslim interests says members of the belief system as a group have faith in the honesty of American elections and they by an overwhelming 93 percent majority say they are loyal to the U.S. And the results claim that while they face a lot of discrimination, they are tolerant of others.
Then the poll reveals what Muslims believe the U.S. must do to make them feel more a part of America.
But where's their opinion about Shariah law in the United States, and just exactly what do they think the Quran says about "infidels?" And why does a "poll" tell the U.S. government and its citizens what they should be doing?
But a pollster offering conclusions based on its polling is hardly out of the ordinary -- WND's own pollster, Fritz Wenzel, does this as well. For instance, a recent WND/Wenzel poll claiming opposition to "open homosexual behavior into the U.S. military" prompted Wenzel to opine, ""As gay activists target specific segments of American society -- education and the military – to promote acceptance of their lifestyle and agenda, Americans oppose such actions. ... After the strong rebuke in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, Democrats face another dramatic defeat if these issues reach a prominent position in political races next year."
After noting that the survey was conducted by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center, which is headed by Dalia Mogahed, Carl wrote: "Mogahed has been identified by Muslim reformer Tarek Fatah during a recent speech in Toronto as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in a position to influence President Barack Obama's policy." But in the WND article Carl cites in support of this claim, Fatah offers no evidence to back it up, asserting only that Mogahed "writes (Obama's) speeches" and "comes from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt."
Mogahed has been a target of right-wingers for her status as an Obama adviser, and WND founder and editor Joseph Farah once declared, "I call her toga head." Given that she moved to the United States with her parents from Egypt when she was 5 years old, any link she purportedly has to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is questionable at best.
During a discussion on Fox News' The Five last week, Eric Bolling bristled at co-host Bob Beckel invoking the tea party's obsession with Obama's birth certificate. According to Bolling, birtherism was "ages ago," and is now "water under the bridge." It certainly behooves Bolling to relegate the birth certificate frenzy to "water under the bridge," considering buffoons like him irreparably damaged their (already minimal) credibility by repeatedly hyping that ridiculous conspiracy theory.
In fact, the last we left Bolling and the birther issue, he and Pam Geller were analyzing a poster-sized version of Obama's long-form birth certificate on Bolling's Fox Business program. At the time, Bolling announced the long-form birth certificate released by the White House "may or may not be" Photoshopped, and added that "there are at least questions." (Among the "questions" Bolling had was how the doctor that delivered Obama hadn't told his family that he had delivered the president, despite the fact the doctor died five years before Obama was elected.)
Either way, good to hear Bolling has found the answers to his questions and the birther issue is now "water under the bridge" for him. However, there's a group for which the birth certificate issue is not "ages ago," but is actually on the verge of finally breaking through and taking down Obama for good.
WorldNetDaily still regularly publishes articles about Obama's birth certificate, and their online "superstore" is still packed with various birther wares. Last week, WND reporter Jerome Corsi, author of Where's the Birth Certificate? and perhaps the single strongest driving force of the birth certificate conspiracy, was invited to Arizona by a tea party group to give a presentation about the birth certificate.
After spending an hour running through his various pieces of evidence that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery and rehashing his conspiracy that birther opportunist Donald Trump was secretly working for Obama, Corsi was asked an important question about whether it concerns him that Obama looks "a lot like Malcolm X." Corsi responded that "there's no proof that he is Malcolm X's son," and he "always thought the father was Indonesian," because Obama's "characteristics are more Indonesian."
The right-wing media have spent much of this month sniping at President Obama for taking a vacation. Now, some are taking the criticism up a notch, venturing into racially charged territory in the process.
In an August 22 column, WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah wrote that "You won't hear me complain that Obama is taking his 17th vacation in the last two-and-half years," adding: "We should be grateful the man has no work ethic. Just imagine the damage he would have done to the country if he did." Farah also asserted that Obama "vacations more than any of his predecessors," which is simply false.
Then, in his August 23 column, WND's Burt Prelutsky took a break from hurling epithets like "loathsome" and "Chicago cockroach" at Obama to declare: "I wouldn't care if Obama was a Muslim if he weren't such an arrogant, lazy, snotty, lying socialist."
That's twice this week that WND columnists have portrayed Obama as lazy. The idea of the lazy black man is among the hoariest bits of stereotypical racial imagery out there, as we noted when Fox News' Eric Bolling described Obama as "chugging 40s" and having "hoodlums in the hizzouse."
It's not the first time that the birther-obsessed WND branch of anti-Obama activism has ventured into this territory. Last year, the WND-affiliated Western Journalism Center published an article with the headline "Is Obama Stupid and Lazy?"
The anti-Muslim segment of the conservative media has identified yet another Republican as a traitor to America because he is supposedly too close to Muslims. The current target is Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), labeled as the "5th column candidate" by Pamela Geller because of his ties to Muslim leader Aga Khan IV and others.
Even after the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a statement saying that it will not require farmers to obtain commercial driver's licenses (CDLs), members of the right-wing media continued to promote the claim.
This week actual journalist Rachel Maddow learned the hard way what happens when you trust the "journalism" published by WorldNetDaily. It began on the August 4 edition of her show, during a segment about how birthers view President Obama's 50th birthday, when Maddow played a clip of Limbaugh saying, "Tomorrow is Obama's birthday -- not that we've seen any proof of that."
Newsbusters – and Limbaugh himself – pounced on Maddow, claiming she had misleadingly presented a year-old clip as being only a day old. In response, she issued a correction on her show the next day, in which she explained where the error came from:
The reason I thought this sound bite was from this week is because of a report from the pro-birther publication WorldNetDaily. The link does not work anymore, but here's a cached version of that report. It was posted just past midnight yesterday, August 4, 2011, at 12:15 a.m., and it misattributed the day that Rush Limbaugh said those words as "today," which would have been Wednesday, August 3, the day before the article was posted. The article also linked to audio uploaded on August 3, 2011, of Rush Limbaugh's comments -- all of which made me believe it was from August 3, 2011, audio that I used and wrongly attributed to having been said on August 3rd, 2011. That clip was mislabeled. The article was wrong, and it was wrong of us to not check early WorldNetDaily's reporting. I am very sorry.
As the screenshot after the jump demonstrates, an August 4 WND article did indeed claim Limbaugh had made the relevant remarks earlier that very same day. WND has since disappeared the article without issuing a correction or apology. It remains in Google cache for the time being.