WorldNetDaily

WND Pundit: Feminists To Blame For Domestic Abuse, Ray Rice Case

Gina Loudon of WorldNetDaily knows who is really to blame for domestic abuse in America: feminists.

Loudon writes today that feminists have convinced women, such as Janay Rice, that “women are the same as men” and therefore do not need protection from their violent male partners, leading to “more abuse of women (and men).”

While Loudon doesn’t have any evidence that feminism is somehow linked to abuse, she believes no “intellectually honest” person could disagree with her analysis.

Where were the bra-burning, old-guard feminists this week in the Ray Rice abuse controversy? If women and men are truly the same as they claim, then why weren’t they screaming in protest of his punishment? If women are the same as men, then how can they argue that a woman beaten by her boyfriend deserves special protection? Were they consistent, the feminist hypocrites would be decrying the NFL for extending protection to women that they do not need (by their own standards).

Feminists demand that training be “equalized” to facilitate women becoming firefighters and combat troops (in mixed-gender units), but on the other hand, they sit quietly when special protections are extended to women. Is there one intellectually honest liberal who will point to this hypocrisy?



The difficult part is that for so long, feminists have said there is no difference between men and women, and the American Psychological Association has backed them up. If that’s true, then you can’t say that male abusers are more at fault than female abusers. That muddies the waters in cases like the Ray Rice controversy. The feminists have not done women a favor here. Clearly, Rice is at least double the size of his now wife. That is a clear difference that should not be overlooked. Despite old feminists’ fantasies, women and men are not the same.



American culture used to value the special protection of women, and now it doesn’t. Feminists burned bras and emasculated men to reach “sameness.” Now they have it, but real women are waking up and asking, “Do we really want to be the same as men?” Less than 20 percent of women today want to call themselves feminists. The old-school feminists wanted military equality (front-line combat), gender neutrality and partnerships instead of the protections for women and children in marriage.

I believe it is that shift to sameness over the past 50 years that has led to more abuse of women (and men). Now taxpayers are forced to fund these myths (that there is no difference between men and women) through “feminist studies” programs in our schools and universities. …

The Rice case is critical to the fiber of our culture, and to those one in four women (and men) out there who understand Palmer’s plight all too well. We can thank the old feminists for putting us here. The question is, can we be honest enough to look at the opposite sex, and admit that equal does not mean same?

WND Columnist: Make The Quran Illegal

The far-right outlet WorldNetDaily, which regularly pushes conspiracy theories about President Obama and gay rights advocates plotting to eliminate religious freedom and criminalize Christianity, today published a column calling on the government to prosecute anyone reading passages from the Quran that could “constitute criminal incitement to murder.”

Lord Christopher Monckton today calls on Congress to pass a bill making it illegal to read passages of the Quran calling for the death of non-believers, which appear in the Hebrew Bible as well.

Craven public authorities have failed to act against the circulation of the Quran in its present form because they fear a violent backlash.

How, then, is this manifestly illegal text to be dealt with? It is not our custom to ban books, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.

However, it is our custom to prosecute for incitement to murder. And the fact that incitement is on every page of what is said to be a holy book does not diminish, still less extinguish, the offense.

A bill should be brought before Congress identifying all passages in the Quran which, whether in isolation or taken together, constitute incitement to murder.

The bill should specify that anyone who reads any of these passages out loud is to be charged with that crime and, if convicted, subjected to the usual penalty for it – a long prison term.

The bill should state that, after a grace period of a year, every copy of the Quran must clearly identify by emboldened and different-colored text the passages that constitute criminal incitement to murder, together with a clearly printed warning on the first page that reading any of these passages out loud anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States may result in prosecution.

The prominent part played by the Quran in the radicalization of young Muslims so that they become willing to murder their own fellow-citizens demands that we act at once, before its dangerous influence incites the loss of any more innocent lives. The Quran as it now stands is illegal.

WND Columnist: Obama Is Just Like Attempted Assassin John Hinckley

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’t handle physically, such as being a professional athlete or a bouncer at a nightclub; and some I wouldn’t consider because of moral objections, such as being a criminal defense attorney. But, after reading Ron Kessler’s latest book, “The First Family Detail,” there’s one I couldn’t handle for any number of reasons, and that’s being a Secret Service agent on a presidential detail.

I mean, imagine swearing to take a bullet or several bullets intended for Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. From having read Kessler’s earlier “In the President’s Secret Service,” I already knew that being assigned to protect Jimmy Carter, John Kerry or Hillary Clinton was tantamount to a prison sentence because of their blatant contempt for those sworn to sacrifice their lives for them. But when it came to guys like Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton, the day-to-day job had less to do with protecting them against assassins than it did with making sure the first ladies didn’t trip over their various bimbos.

Speaking of which, I had a good laugh recently when a bevy of Hollywood bimbos whined that hackers had managed to upload their nude photos and post them on the Internet. It seems to me that if you feel the need to take selfies of yourself in the buff, hackers are the least of your problems.

Frankly, I see little difference between all this and the nudity they often display in their professional lives on screen, aside from the fact that they aren’t compelled to defend this form of exhibitionism as essential to the plot of some cinematic stinkeroo.



Clearly, we have a commander in chief who is every bit as delusional as John Hinckley, who not only believed that actress Jodie Foster would be smitten with him if he could somehow manage to assassinate Ronald Reagan, but never even considered just sending her flowers and a box of candy.

I suspect that even if you’d pointed out to Hinckley that Ms. Foster was a lesbian, he’d have dismissed that as a mere hiccup. Instead, like Joe E. Brown in “Some Like it Hot,” when his beloved Daphne (Jack Lemmon) finally whips off his wig and confesses, “I’m not even a woman,” Hinckley would have said, “Nobody’s perfect.”

But, clearly, every time Obama gazes into a mirror, he finds reason to disagree with Joe E. Brown, even if nobody else does. I mean, what can he possibly be thinking when an American journalist is beheaded in Iraq and he flies off to yet another fundraiser? And when a second journalist is beheaded a week later, he’s the only person in America who not only isn’t screaming for blood, but doesn’t even take a moment to offer the man’s family the nation’s condolences.

Ben Carson Joins Far-Right Outlet WorldNetDaily

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 gayMuslimcommunistdemon-possessed dictator who is setting up concentration camps and cattle cars for his planned holocaust.

WND, nonetheless, remains influential in right-wing circles and has access to high-ranking Republican politicians. Another likely Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Rand Paul, even cited the website’s “reporting” to substantiate one of his Benghazi conspiracy theories, while admitting: “I don’t have any proof.”

In fact, “I don’t have any proof” is a great way to describe WND’s style of journalism.

Joseph Farah: No Difference Between ISIS And CAIR

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 same; it’s only a matter of strategy for achieving them.”

The stealth jihadists have a public relations nightmare on their hands.

It’s called ISIS – or, as the head-chopping Muslim terrorists of the Middle East prefer to be known, “Islamic State.”

The Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a darling of the U.S. media, thinks ISIS is giving “jihadists” like them a bad name.



In other words, [Nihad] Awad, whose organization is actually an offshoot of the terrorist group Hamas, currently bombarding Israeli cities with rockets, thinks ISIS should kill, maim, behead and institute Saudi-style Shariah law less zealously, more judiciously, more moderately and perhaps less conspicuously.

I can’t believe this kind of talk is believed by anyone who has witnessed Islam’s carnage over the last 13 years.



The tactics of Awad and CAIR may differ from ISIS. But it’s like the difference between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. The goals are the same; it’s only a matter of strategy for achieving them.

Right now, the Middle East is at stake.

With hand-wringing and vacillation the response from the West, Awad’s tepid denunciation of ISIS may sound comforting.

But, don’t get fooled, again.

People must be judged not by their words but by their fruits. And, it’s fair to say after 1,400 years of terror, genocide and unspeakable tyranny in the Islamic world that its fruit is rotten to the core.

Citing Zero Evidence, Right-Wing Media Blames Respiratory Disease Outbreak On Migrant Kids

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’t know why this rhinovirus is suddenly breaking out in your area. … Don’t you think it would be rational to say, ‘Wait a minute. Let’s look at these clusters to see if these kids are in schools where Obama dumped illegal aliens? You know that the government will not release the schools or the districts when they move these kids from Guatemala into this country? They won’t even disclose where they are?”

Rush Limbaugh also speculated about a connection:

Limbaugh asked, “Are the two stories related or are they not? Does this sweeping, mysterious virus that’s multiplying across the Midwest, does it have anything to do with it or not? We don’t know. That’s the answer. We just don’t know. But some people think there may be some kind of a connection.”

WND even provided this helpful map, which when you look at it doesn’t actually appear to show any pattern at all:

And, when you get further into WND’s story, you learn that the actual experts they contacted were quick to dismiss the idea of a connection between child migrants and the disease. A CDS spokesman told WND that there was “no connection”:

Benjamin N. Haynes, CDC senior spokesman for the infectious disease team, told WND there’s “no connection” between the virus outbreak and the Obama administration’s relocation of illegal aliens across America who have come across the U.S.-Mexico border.

And a spokesman for one of the hospitals said that the cases they were dealing with came from their “usual demographic”:

A spokesman for the University of Chicago Medical Center told WND, “At the University of Chicago Medicine, these cases we have seen have been typical of our usual demographic, from all walks of life.”

As it happens, this is the second time in two weeks that we've seen a right-wing news outlet accidentally debunk its own story on child migrants and disease.

William Gheen: Obama Wants ISIS To Attack US So He Can Win Election, Impose Dictatorship

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 migrants to the southern U.S. border are in fact part of a plot to provide political cover for Obama until after the elections.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration or ALIPAC, also said he believes concerns about ISIS overseas pale in comparison to the threat of rampant illegal immigration. He did not hear the Buchanan interview but made similar statements Monday to WND.

“ISIS could cut off the heads of journalists once a month for the next five years and that’s not going to destroy America, but Obama’s pumping of illegal immigrants into the country will,” Gheen said.

He said the Obama administration was “going into full stealth mode” to continue its open-borders policy as quietly as possible, and may even give the impression to some on the left that it is abandoning its commitment to “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is a euphemism for amnesty. The progressives will shout and scream that Obama is backing away from his pledge to grant amnesty by delaying the inevitable, but this is all political theater, in Gheen’s eyes.

“The only thing I believe that will stop Obama’s next window of completing the dictatorship plans is if there is a massive sweep of conservatives at the election polls in November that outdoes the historic shift of 2010,” Gheen said.

He said Obama is going “deep underground” with unmarked vans full of illegals being transported into the interior of the country. The administration has enlisted the help of various progressive groups, paying nonprofits, faith-based charities and private individuals to resettle the unaccompanied minor children in cities across the U.S.

“These individuals and groups can receive up to $10,000 a month to provide housing facilities and other aid,” Gheen said. “Obama has gone into full stealth mode.”

The government of Mexico is on board, helping to shield the operation, Gheen said, citing recent articles, including one by the Associated Press, that explain how Mexico is cracking down on undocumented Central Americans heading to its border with the U.S.

Mexico has also set up moving roadblocks, checking the documents of passengers on interstate buses.

“Mexico, also a partner in the planned North America Union, has taken steps to stem the flow of illegals until after the election,” Gheen said. “They’ve cleared the Beast (freight train) of illegals. They’re aware of the backlash and they’re trying to turn off that flow for now, until we get past the election.”

Gheen believes the news about the ISIS terrorist group’s atrocities in the Middle East also helps Obama and the congressional incumbents.

“If you look at history, the unfortunate result of terrorist threats and attacks has been to favor incumbents in Washington,” he said. “The American public’s prior reactions to terror threats and acts has been to support incumbents. There is a psychological theory that when citizens feel threatened they will instinctively cling to the devil they know, to the people in power that are familiar to them.

“Which means the Obama administration now has a political incentive for ISIS to threaten or actually carry out attacks because the precedent is that the people will reward you with more power and more money, which is what we did after 9/11, so when I see all this publicity of ISIS chopping off heads, I see it as political theater, I see it as psychological operations and attempts to manipulate the American public in the mid-term election cycle. It benefits all incumbents but because the Democrats control the Senate and White House it benefits them the most.”

Schlafly: Immigrants Will Destroy America If They Don't Vote Republican

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 will be dead. Maybe so will the U.S.”

Even at the age of 90, she’s still not done; her latest book “Who Killed the American Family?” will be released by WND Books later this month.

In it, she finds the American family under attack from a range of forces, including feminists, judges, lawmakers, psychologists, universities, the media and illegal immigration.

She sees President Obama and other Democratic leaders as complicit in the importation of people who don’t share the American value of self-reliance.

“The Democrats know perfectly well that the people coming in are people who are not accustomed to our ideas of self-government and limited government, and they expect government to take care of them, and that’s what we’re doing,” Schlafly said in an interview.



The Eagle Forum in February issued a report called “How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party.”

The premise was that the vast majority of immigrants in the U.S. have liberal policy preferences, according to survey data from numerous sources. These liberal preferences cannot be overcome by better GOP messaging or Republican support of amnesty for the current illegal population.

According to the report, the only hope for the Republican Party to remain viable as a national conservative party is to restrict the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country each year.

The report dealt mostly with legal immigration, but since it came out, the southern U.S. border has seen a tremendous surge of illegal crossers, many of them children and teenagers. Schlafly is just as adamant about these illegal immigrants as she is about the others.

“I think they ought to be put on buses and sent back immediately,” she said. “There’s no reason to let them in. They say they have to go before some court. They don’t need to go before some court. It’s an invasion of people we don’t want in this country, and they ought to be sent back.”



“Well, it might take 50 years, but meanwhile the Republican Party will be dead. Maybe so will the U.S.,” she said.

Jim Garlow: Joan Rivers Going To Hell For Her 'Potty Mouth'

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 married five times, are equally foulmouthed and some who are known for their willfully sinful and “degeneres” practices.

During these moments, my reflections are different, as I come from a different “kingdom.” May I respectfully appeal to scriptural truth, as opposed to the idolizing of practices that are dishonoring to God? Going against the extolling crowd, may I have permission to be contrarian?

I sincerely hope Joan Rivers repented in her final hours. All of us must repent for sin in our lives, if we are to enter into God’s glorious heaven. Without that spirit of repentance before God, along with heartfelt contrition, another place awaits us – you remember, that other place that no one ever wants to mention.



Authentically skillful comedians do not have to have a “potty mouth.” We try to teach young children to have more class than that. Comedians should be held to a higher standard.

Every child needs to be taught how to respect and how to respond to others. Debating each other’s ideas is healthy. In contrast, cutting personal attacks are not acceptable. Authentic and respectful “roasting” can be clever and truly humorous. However, degrading others is not “roasting.” It is mean. Joan Rivers – along with several other comedians – never learned the difference. The fact that they got by with it, and were paid millions of dollars to do it, does not justify it.



So the so-called “experts” are on all the TV shows talking about Rivers. One has been married five times. Another is so vile, his humor cannot be aired. Another champions immorality. They lift up Rivers’ “talent.” Yes, she was talented, but I say she abused it. And many were harmed by it.

I will be in the minority. The moral baseline has been moved so low that many Christians will be applauding her “contributions to life.” But that only shows the depth of their lack of the understanding of the holiness of God, before whom every one of us will stand someday. Once we face him, being the snide host of “Fashion Police” on E! – or for that matter, any of the hidden sins in our lives – will not be “funny.” It will be serious.

Alan Keyes: Obama Is Funding ISIS To Wage 'War On The People Of The United States'

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 that constitute ISIS.”

He claims that Obama administration officials funded ISIS “because they knew the declared aim of the terrorist forces in question and understood, therefore, that those forces are committed to making implacable war on the people of the United States and their self-government.”

Once we remember this root meaning we realize that, in order to understand what strategy is at work, we must first answer the critical question: Who is the enemy? In light of their declared hostility toward the United States, and the grisly murders they have perpetrated on account of it, we naturally assume that, when someone purporting to be the president of the United States speaks of a strategy for dealing with ISIS we are right to assume that they are the enemy. But the statements and actions of Obama and his cohorts suggest the likelihood that, in the strategy he is pursuing, the enemy is not ISIS, but the life and liberty of the people of the United States.

In his statement after Jim Foley was murdered Obama said disparagingly of the perpetrators that “They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors. …” He was speaking in the context of the gruesomely hostile murder of an innocent American citizen, dramatically enacted and publicized as an act of war against the United States. So what sense did it make to imply that the perpetrators’ claim to be at war with us is at all questionable?

It makes no sense, except perhaps as a lawyer’s quibble. Taken as such, it seems 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 that constitute ISIS; that they did so in ways that risked and eventually claimed American lives, including innocent civilians, and military, diplomatic and security personnel, e.g., at Benghazi; and that they did so covertly precisely because they knew the declared aim of the terrorist forces in question and understood, therefore, that those forces are committed to making implacable war on the people of the United States and their self-government.

WND Pundit Cites Osama Bin Laden To Claim Obama's A 'Girly-Man President'

WorldNetDaily’s Jane Chastain thinks President Obama acts pretty much like a “valley girl chewing gum and doing her nails” who will forever be known as the country’s first “valley girly-man president.”

Chastain even cites a quote from Osama bin Laden as proof of Obama’s weakness: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Yes, the late al-Qaeda leader must think Obama’s a total wimp.

Hillary Clinton would like to become the first woman president. Should she succeed, it likely would be a bit anticlimactic. We’ve already had a girly-man president. More correctly, we’ve had a valley girly-man president – an uppity little pampered princess who can’t, or won’t, be bothered with things in which he has no interest, like terrorism or foreign policy.



In true valley girl (I’m privileged and don’t have to work) fashion, he spent his time partying with socialites and high rollers at a series of lavish fundraisers and attended an extravagant wedding.

Obama told his guests at the event in Westchester County, New York, “(Like) I promise you (like) things are (totally) much less dangerous now (I’m so sure) than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago. (Rad!)” Nor was Obama the least bit worried about the growing crisis with Russia in Ukraine. As if to drive home that point Obama added, “(Like) this is not something that is comparable to the challenges we faced during the Cold War (Duh)!” Speaking to another group of affluent guests in Newport, Rhode Island, Obama assured those assembled that our post 9/11 security system “makes us in the here and now (like) pretty safe. (Chill!)” He added that ISIS “doesn’t immediately (like totally) threaten the homeland. (Duh! Whatever!)”



Remember these words of Osama bin Laden, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Over the long holiday weekend, the closest Obama came to work was a Labor Day speech in Milwaukee where he concentrated on the “rights of (illegal) immigrants” and the minimum wage. With ISIS bent on our destruction and Russia gobbling up territory, that’s tantamount to a valley girl chewing gum and doing her nails.

Erik Rush: Obama May 'Orchestrate Terrorist Strike' Against US, Give ISIS Base In New Mexico

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush knows the real reason President Obama designated the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks region in southern New Mexico as protected land: to create a base for ISIS extremists to enter the country and plot attacks against the U.S.

In a column titled “Obama: The Head of the ISIS Snake,” Rush adds that Obama may even “use his jihadi army” to strike against America to help him become a dictator: “Whether Obama intends to seize absolute power via martial law after a comprehensive White House-orchestrated terrorist strike or use his jihadi army to aid in pacifying an unsuspecting American populace matters little. The bottom line is that the decisive measures needed to defeat ISIS and to protect American citizens from them will never be taken by this president, and it should be obvious as to why.”

It is high time that those in government who have any desire whatsoever to preserve this nation as an ongoing concern take stock of the abundance of evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is responsible for the resurgence of Islamic militancy in the Middle East, and ISIS in particular.

As uncomfortable for them as it may be, they must come to grips with the fact that Obama is a well-placed saboteur representing malignant interests, enemies both foreign and domestic, that have been strategizing the downfall of the United States for decades.

In May of this year, Obama named the Desert Peaks National Monument in New Mexico a federally designated monument. Setting aside this land with an executive order under the Antiquities Act of 1906, the nearly half million acres bordering the Mexican state of Chihuahua is now off-limits to all but foot traffic. Potential for the incursion of malefactors in that area is enormous; not just an efficient and effective route for small bands of drug smugglers or gangs, it now amounts to a protected access for potentially large sorties onto the U.S. soil.

In the context of what I have postulated here, why might Obama do this?

Let’s forget for a moment the possibility of a terror cell executing a Nairobi mall-style attack or detonating a dirty bomb somewhere in Middle America. Picture 100 malls or elementary schools across the U.S. laid siege simultaneously, two or more full-fledged thermonuclear devices detonated in American cities, or a few high-sensitivity military bases taken over by terrorists. Consider that these forces would have the training and weaponry to suit the job, as well as the intelligence necessary to give them a far better than even chance of success – all provided by our own government.

Bear in mind that the Desert Peaks phenomenon is but one instance in which Obama has left America vulnerable; there are others we’ve been made aware of, and probably still others we don’t yet know about.

If this sounds preposterous, just remember that those of us who warned against the rise of an Islamist caliphate were mocked only a year ago, and now one exists, courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama.

Whether Obama intends to seize absolute power via martial law after a comprehensive White House-orchestrated terrorist strike or use his jihadi army to aid in pacifying an unsuspecting American populace matters little. The bottom line is that the decisive measures needed to defeat ISIS and to protect American citizens from them will never be taken by this president, and it should be obvious as to why. This nation now faces extreme and unprecedented crises, and apart from an Act of God, they will only be resolved through extreme and unprecedented measures.

The removal of the Obama regime, extrication of Islamists from our government, the closure of our southern border, drastically heightened security procedures and the summary expulsion or prosecution of anyone who even remotely resembles an Islamist or who supports that worldview are now absolute imperatives.

WND's Owens: Ice Bucket Challenge Is A 'Satanic Ritual'

WorldNetDaily columnist Selena Owens recently watched an online video about the supposed evils of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, and she is now convinced that the charity fundraising challenge is a “sacrilegious,” “cultic,” “Satanic ritual.”

Owens claims the act of dumping a bucket of water over one’s head is tricking people into participating “in a satanic ritual — with or without their knowledge” that is “a form of water baptism with cultic god Oprah.” All of this, she says, shouldn’t be a surprise, since after all “whenever spectators watch singers like Beyonce, JayZ, Rihanna, Lady Gaga and especially Nicki Minaj, they are indoctrinated and involved with blatantly satanic rituals that stem from the deep abyss of the occult.”

With that in mind, I investigated the phenomenon behind the ALS IBC, and I discovered the IBC to be darker rather than enlightening and quite cultic instead of a lighthearted attempt to understand a debilitating disease.

Let me explain.

Let’s begin with the bizarre, rather dark “drowning accident” of Corey Griffin, the 27-year-old IBC co-founder. Griffin died last month when he left a very successful ALS fundraiser and “dove off a building at Straight Wharf in Nantucket at 2 a.m. on Aug. 16 and drowned, according to the Boston Globe. ‘He floated to the surface [and] then he sank. He did not come up again,’ the report says. Corey was pronounced dead at 3 a.m. He had helped raise $100,000 for ALS research on the night of his death.’”

Corey Griffin appeared to be on a path to great achievements: He was a college hockey player, enjoyed a very successful financial career and was a philanthropist who raised money for children in hospitals and his friend stricken with ALS. It confounds me as to why Griffin would take such a risk with his life, especially in the dead of night? Very odd. Very bizarre. Very dark.



I also thought about why people would pour water over their heads. Sometimes the participants drench themselves, but typically someone else is designated to this task. Now I realize that being immersed in ice-cold water is quite a challenge to take, and it would definitely attract attention; I get it. However, I couldn’t put my finger on why this didn’t feel right to me – then I saw this video on Facebook. In the video, Evangelist Anita Fuentes breaks down an assortment of cryptic and cultic messages hidden in the IBC. It’s worth watching to decide for yourself if evil influences and symbolism are embedded within the IBC, or if Fuentes – as well as myself – is looking for ghosts behind every bush and a conspiracy behind every popular fad.

In particular, Fuentes’ video depicts the world-renowned cultic queen of talk, Oprah Winfrey, taking the IBC. Winfrey precedes her dousing with the words, “In the name of ALS and the Ice Bucket Challenge. …”[emphasis mine] Interesting choice of words.

Winfrey’s proclamation hit a nerve with me because Christians, myself included, routinely pray and make decrees “in the name of Jesus.” We specify whom we worship when we invoke prayer in Jesus’ name. However, because Oprah mistakenly believes the One True God is jealous of her, and the well-known fact that she denounces Jesus as the only way to God and basically considers herself to be a god, I found this statement to be very cultic in nature.

Fuentes also addresses the matter of pouring water over ones [sic] head and how that act directly correlates with water baptism and syncs the IBC with the sacred Christian deed of cleansing and purification, albeit, in a sacrilegious manner. She also delves into deep issues of rituals stemming from dark, cultic practices that encompass the IBC and which symbolically place America and Americans in a satanic ritual – with or without their knowledge.

Satanic ritual? Yes. Rituals abound in “Christian” America. Whenever spectators watch singers like Beyonce, JayZ, Rihanna, Lady Gaga and especially Nicki Minaj, they are indoctrinated and involved with blatantly satanic rituals that stem from the deep abyss of the occult. Some of these very same artists have taken the ALS IBC. Gaga doesn’t utter a word as she baptizes herself, arrayed in a sexy black leotard, sporting black lips, perched in an ornate black chair. Gaga doesn’t use a bucket; she instead uses a large silver bowl associated with pagan worship. Do you think she would take the IBC if it didn’t meet her pagan criteria? Not a chance.

The ALS IBC is ritualistic in nature. People are chosen to undergo a form of water baptism with cultic god Oprah leading the charge “in the name of ALS.”

WND Columnist: Voting Democratic 'Comes Close To Being Treason'

A columnist for the far-right outlet WorldNetDaily writes today that “the future of civilization itself” depends on a GOP victory in the midterm elections, calling the upcoming elections “the most important in the history of the United States, and of the world.”

Lord Christopher Monckton, an outspoken birther and climate denialist, warns that President Obama and his Democratic allies intend to destroy the country by handing over power to the United Nations and imposing a regime that may kill tens of millions of people.

“[I]f the ‘Democrats’ get their way, the flickering torch carried by the Statue of Liberty may yet be snuffed out forever,” Monckton writes. “The threat is real – so real that even to vote ‘Democrat’ comes close to being treason.”

The coming midterm elections – just weeks away – may yet prove to be the most important in the history of the United States, and of the world.

There is a chance – it cannot yet be put any higher than that – that the GOP may recapture control of the Senate. The future of civilization itself may depend upon its succeeding. No one should underestimate just how much the United States is respected, admired and even loved worldwide as an example and a beacon of freedom. But if the “Democrats” get their way, the flickering torch carried by the Statue of Liberty may yet be snuffed out forever, together with the nation of which it has long been the symbol.



By little and little, the “Democrats” have become the implacable enemies of everything for which the Founding Fathers so nobly and so successfully strove. Their increasingly close ideological links with international anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-libertarian Marxism and its sinister bedfellow, pietistic environmental extremism, have become an existential threat to the very survival of the United States as an independent nation. The threat is real – so real that even to vote “Democrat” comes close to being treason. Lest that statement should sound too extreme, let me explain. The ideologies of Marxism and its modern disguise, environmentalism, are explicitly internationalist – or, rather, anti-nationalist. The very idea of nation states whose citizens might wish to be free is utterly alien to the totalitarian mind, which considers that on all matters of politics only one opinion – that of Big Brother – has any value. All opinions contrary to the Party Line are not merely anathema: they are punishable, often by death.

Just as the savage brutality of Marxism and its twin, Fascism, killed 100 million people in the 20th century, so the active hatred of Man that is the defining characteristic of that 21st-century species of totalitarianism that lurks behind the fig-leaf of environmentalism is bidding fair to kill 100 million more by denying them affordable electrical power.



These three destructive policies – excessive national debt, excessive cuts in the armed forces and excessive regulation and taxation of energy use – have not come together by accident. They are elements in a deliberate strategy, pursued by the international left not only in the United States but worldwide, to destroy the very notion of the nation state – and, in doing so, to overthrow the very notion of democracy and of the individual liberty of which the ballot box is at once the ultimate expression and the ultimate guarantor.

Note Mr. Obama’s contempt for the mere voters and for the Congress whose members they have chosen, in his decision to allow the unelected bureaucrats of the Environmental Destruction Agency to issue pointless, costly, intrusive regulations that, under Article I, Section 1, of your Constitution, are the province of Congress alone.

Worse, if he is given a chance, he will sign away America’s sovereignty to the unelected United Nations, giving the secretariat of its Framework Convention on Climate Change not only environmental but also economic power over your nation regardless of your will and the will of those whom you elect to Congress.

Larry Klayman Will Save America From Obama, Writes Larry Klayman

Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman has filed another lawsuit against President Obama, and said in his WorldNetDaily column last week that President Obama is “destroying the nation and our lives” as he is “loyal to his Middle Eastern Muslim brothers and his racial heritage.”

Lamenting that Republicans aren’t anti-Obama enough, Klayman said that saving America is now up to him: “To remain silent and take no forceful decisive action would amount to sowing the seeds of our own destruction. I, for one, am trying to use the legal system, what is left of it given its march toward increased corruption in recent years, to try to check this tyranny.”

One might ask: How is it possible that Obama and his comrades could get away with this? Where is the opposition Republican political party, which prides itself on claimed honest dealings and patriotism? Indeed, now that the threat to our shores from ISIS, another and even worse Muslim terrorist group, is becoming increasingly known, how is it that, according to the Republicans, Obama is all to blame for allowing this radical Islamic cancer to grow? Why haven’t the leaders in the Republican Party loudly spoken up before now? Apparently, their primary interest is getting on Fox News to win the next election this fall and in 2016, not forcing Congress to serve as a real check to a president and his enablers who are bent on destroying the nation.

This is a dilemma that We the People find ourselves in today. To remain silent and take no forceful decisive action would amount to sowing the seeds of our own destruction. I, for one, am trying to use the legal system, what is left of it given its march toward increased corruption in recent years, to try to check this tyranny.



The events of the last week, and months in particular, have proven that the United States is in dire and critical condition, hanging by a thread, ruled over by a president who is more loyal to his Middle Eastern Muslim brothers and his racial heritage than all of the people. In this latter respect, just look at his biased conduct, and that of his equally racist attorney general, with regard to the sad events in Ferguson, Missouri – where a policeman was effectively condemned to prosecution for killing a black man before all the facts were known. Meanwhile, white cops killed by blacks (and there have been six in the last few years just in my native city of Philadelphia alone) get no attention from this president and his Al Sharpton-like allies. And, this is how it should be, as these tragic events should be left to law enforcement, and the president and his men should not intervene to create a lynching party to hang “whitey” for years of past invidious discrimination.

Fellow Americans, remember the Declaration of Independence and the revolution that followed and take heed. Now, 238 years later, it’s time to again think things through and act against a tyrannical sovereign who is destroying the nation and our lives, as time is all but running out.

Massie: Obama Racist Against Whites, And Wants Black Genocide!

Mychal Massie of WorldNetDaily writes today that President Obama is a racist, “race-mongering infidel” who values “blacks more than he valued all citizens” and hates white people, sentiments which are par for the course at the far-right outlet.

However, Massie also believes Obama is advocating the “systematic extermination” of black people through legal abortion.

So apparently, Obama just hates everybody:

And the utilities he has used to do so are right out of Saul “the Red” Alinsky’s Communist handbook. Those of us who were paying close attention understood that America didn’t need changing and that Obama’s idea of change was to create a socialist state. We understood and warned people pursuant to exactly what Obama stood for, and we warned he was a neo-Leninist with a proclivity for radical Islam who would use skin color and class warfare to divide America.

Now, except for those who are in a terminal state of denial based on an Erebusic ideology and color of skin, there is no longer any doubt that Obama is a neo-Leninist Muslim sympathizer who is committed to transmogrifying America into something that will be unidentifiable to the America our Founding Fathers provided for vis-a-vis our Constitution.



As America comes to the end of Obama’s tyrannical reign, he is pulling the curtains back for all to see. He no longer even pretends to govern within the constraints of the Constitution. He has sanctioned Eric Holder to administer justice based on color-coded enforcement.

He was elected the president of the United States, i.e., of all Americans, but he makes it clear time and time again that while he praises Planned Parenthood for the systematic extermination of unborn black children, he openly despises whites. And he exhibits his contempt for whites at every opportunity.

Some may still try to say he isn’t openly racist, but it is time to call this spade a spade. If he weren’t a race-mongering infidel, he wouldn’t have said Trayvon Martin looked like the son he didn’t have; at the very least, he would have acknowledged that Christopher Lane, the white baseball player who was murdered in Oklahoma by three blacks, could have looked like him if he had a son as well.

If Obama didn’t value the use of blacks more than he valued all citizens, regardless of their skin color, he wouldn’t have sent an “armada” of representatives to the funeral of a black hoodlum while ignoring the funerals of white law-enforcement officers murdered by blacks.

If Obama cared about the United States, he would not have put his golf game above the beheading of American journalist James Foley, even as the Syrian coalition announced to the world that “Foley died because Obama ignored his own red lines.”

As I stated, it is time to call a spade a spade and this one is named Obama.

WorldNetDaily Pundit Inadvertently Explains Why Bundy Supporters Went Quiet On Ferguson

Yesterday, we asked why the anti-government “Patriot” movement that was so angry about perceived government overreach at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada was all but silent about the arrival of police officers in military grade gear to quell protests in Ferguson, Missouri.

The best explanation, we said, was race: both the Right’s general denial that race plays a role in American life until liberals bring it up, and the sense among some in the anti-government Right that African Americans, even when they are protesting government overreach, are actually tools of the government.

Today, WorldNetDaily columnist Ilana Mercer demonstrated this very point for us in a column in which she says she will not stand with those protesting in Ferguson, even though she agrees with them on many issues, because they are trying to make it about race.

Mercer, who defended Cliven Bundy in his stand-off with the government, writes that she is very angry about “police brutality,” the “militarization of the police force” and the “rise of the warrior cop”; that she supports drug decriminalization; and that she thinks that the shooting of Michael Brown was “an unjustified use of lethal police force.”

But, she says, she won’t ally with anybody who sees these issues as racial issues, such as the “two pimps in a pod” Al Sharpton and President Obama, and she blasts Sen. Rand Paul for acknowledging the role of race in Michael Brown’s death.

Police brutality? Yes! Militarization of the police force? You bet! “A Government of Wolves”? Yes again! “The Rise of the Warrior Cop”? No doubt! But racism? Nonsense on stilts! So why have some libertarians applied this rhetoric to the murder-by-cop of black teenager Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri? The same people who would argue against color-coded hate-crime legislation – and rightly so, for a crime is a crime, no matter the skin pigment of perp or prey – would have you believe that it is possible to differentiate a racist from a non-racist shooting or beating.

Laws prohibiting the individual from purchasing, selling, ingesting, inhaling and injecting drugs ought to be repudiated and repealed on the grounds that they are wrong, not racist. But statism is not necessarily racism. Drug laws ensnare more blacks, because blacks are more likely to violate them by dealing in drugs or engaging in violence around commerce in drugs, not necessarily because cops are racists.


The following statements are, I believe, not mutually exclusive: Cops deal with the reality of crime. The culture of U.S. cops is that of a craven disregard for American lives.

By all means, argue against laws prohibiting victimless “crimes” on the ground that these disproportionally ensnare blacks. But do not err in accusing all cops of targeting blacks, when the former are entrusted with enforcing the law, and the latter violate the law in disproportion to their numbers in the general population.

The left-liberal trend continued on the libertarian LewRockwell.com, where white sympathy with the police was conflated with racism: “This doesn’t mean that racism is not also involved [in Ferguson]. Polls show that a majority of white Americans are content with the police justification for the killing.”

Could it be that ordinary Americans maligned as racists are honestly waiting for more information, or suffer an authoritarian, submissive mindset; are ignorant about “police state USA,” or have simply experienced “black crime” firsthand, or are fearful of experiencing “black-on-white violence” in all it ferocity?

Clearly, there are many reasons for the acquiescence of whites in what might seem to many of us – myself included – as an unjustified use of lethal police force.

MSNBC host Al Sharpton is that fellow whose intelligible spoken English is confined to the words “racial discrimination.” The country’s second-leading race agitator has been deputized by its first as liaison to the White House in Ferguson. With his choice of Sharpton as point man on the ground, President Barack Obama, who was to usher in an America in which “ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony,” is stoking more strife.

Like two pimps in a pod, Sharpton and Obama have collaborated to keep racial grievance going.

Scott Lively: Vicky Beeching Represents 'The Drawing Back Of The Tide' Before Gay Rights 'Tsunami'

In the days since British Christian singer Vicky Beeching came out as a lesbian, anti-gay pastor Scott Lively has been on full alert, confronting Beeching on TV and issuing a pamphlet warning churches that “a dangerous modern heresy called 'gay theology' is infiltrating the Christian church at an alarming pace.”

Lively continued his anti-Beeching crusade in an interview with WorldNetDaily this weekend, in which he warned that the singer represents “the drawing back of the tide before a tsunami” consisting of “attacks on Christians in America like we’ve never seen before.”

An evangelical Christian worship singer who has been urging churches to change their doctrine on homosexual behavior since announcing she is a lesbian is at the forefront of a coming tidal wave of “infiltration” of the church by promoters of the “gay” agenda, contends evangelical attorney, evangelist and activist Scott Lively.

Lively, president of Abiding Truth Ministries, said that with insiders on the offensive such as Vicky Beeching, a British-born artist who has become popular among evangelicals in the U.S., he expects “attacks on Christians in America like we’ve never seen before.”

He explained that after the Stonewall riots in 1969, homosexual activists banded together to oppose every American institution that did not fully accept and promote homosexual behavior.

The first victory was over the American Psychiatric Association, and within 40 years, every other group had been conquered, he said. The Boy Scouts were the latest to fall, just a year ago.

Now, the only organization left is the church, he said.

“All of their battle-hardened activists and enormous resources are all directed at the church,” he said.

The problem is that church leaders haven’t been preparing for such a fight, Lively said, and don’t really know what the movement is about.

Beeching revealed she is a lesbian in an interview last week with the Independent newspaper of London.

“What Jesus taught was a radical message of welcome and inclusion and love. I feel certain God loves me just the way I am, and I have a huge sense of calling to communicate that to young people,” she said.

Lively, however, said Beeching represents “the drawing back of the tide before a tsunami” and an indicator of “how bad this is going to get.”

WND Columnist: Isla Vista, California Is 'Infested By Demons'

WorldNetDaily columnist Stuart Goldman writes today that a series of horrific murders committed in Isla Vista, California over the past several decades, such as Elliot Rodger’s recent killing spree, are a result of the city’s “occultism” and “aura of evil that seems to fill the air so thick that I literally become sick to my stomach.”

“[C]an I make a case here for my statement that the little beach own of Isla Vista is, in fact, infested by demons? I think I can.” Goldman writes, before adding: “I have no tangible proof.”

I smoked my first marijuana cigarette in Isla Vista. In fact, the apartment complex I lived in was said to be “the place” for obtaining marijuana. I also took my first dose of LSD while living in Isla Vista. I took it on several occasions.

It was while living in Isla Vista that I joined a cult led by Indian Guru named Jiddu Krishnamurti, whose teaching I became acquainted with while studying Eastern mysticism. I spent my days at the Unicorn bookstore, which stocked a massive array of books on occultism and Eastern mysticism.

I can’t say whether or not it was because of the drugs I was taking, but the fact is, I always had a sense that there was a palpable aura of “evil” in Isla Vista. It was nothing I could put my finger on; it was just a feeling – one that was impossible to ignore.

I have gone back to visit Isla Vista several times during the years since I left there in 1971. Every time I go there, the aura of evil that seems to fill the air is so thick that I literally become sick to my stomach. In fact, the last time I went there, it was so bad, I realized I could never go back there again.



Many of Rodgers friends told authorities that Rodgers had displayed an unusual interest in the occult – and particularly in demons.

The burning question is, can I make a case here for my statement that the little beach own of Isla Vista is, in fact, infested by demons?

I think I can. I have no tangible proof. What I can say is that the Lord has confirmed this to me during prayers sessions in which I have asked Him to reveal the truth to me about this issue.

Let me know what you think.

Joseph Farah: Being Against Same-Sex Marriage Is A Sexual Orientation

In a WorldNetDaily column today, Joseph Farah came up with a creative argument for exempting businesses that deny services to gay couples from nondiscrimination laws. Opposing same-sex marriage, Farah argues, is itself a “sexual orientation” and therefore a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation is actually discriminatory against the sexual orientation of marriage equality opponents.

Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn’t that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else’s sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God’s definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman?

The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It’s just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others.

Isn’t that obvious?

Farah finishes things up on more familiar ground, attempting to tie together the gay rights movement and Islamic radicals.

When “non-discrimination” becomes victimization of those with different religious and moral convictions, we literally have the establishment of a state religion and, effectively, the repeal of the First Amendment.

Who wants that?

It’s not Christians.

It’s not Jews.

Just look around and see for yourself.

Some people are trying to get the state to force those with different values, morals and religious idea to serve them in ways that violate their consciences.

I only see that kind of coercion demanded among two groups of people today – those who believe in the unlimited power of the state as their “god” and others who believe their god wants them to kill or subjugate all “infidels.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious