WorldNetDaily

Tom Tancredo: Obama Might Launch Attack On Israel

In WorldNetDaily this weekend, former Rep. Tom Tancredo wondered if President Obama will soon launch a military strike against Israel in order to help Iran.

Citing a fabricated quote from Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope,” the former Colorado Republican congressman wrote that the president may bring about “a U.S. military attack on Israel” to stop the country from “attack[ing] Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

He added that by refusing to impeach Obama, Republicans in Congress are giving Obama an opportunity to launch such an attack.

Would anyone be surprised to see this headline in the spring or summer of 2016: “Obama orders U.S. military attack on Israel / blocks Israeli strike at Iran / Iran grateful“?

Like it or not, there is an increasing likelihood we will see that kind of headline before Obama leaves office.

Why should we worry about that? Does water flow downhill?



Obama, by contrast, believes “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Moreover, in his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama said: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Well, forgive me, but nuclear missiles pointed at the United States and Tel Aviv from the foremost terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world might be construed by many as “an ugly direction.”

Who or what would stop Obama from attacking Israel? A Republicans [sic] Party that is already throwing in the towel on the Iran nuclear agreement? Republican leaders who will not even utter the word “impeachment” no matter how unconstitutional Obama’s actions? Republican presidential candidates who can’t even make a strong case for secure borders?

There is good reason why Obama does not fear the Republican-controlled Congress. Why should he? Does the snake fear the mouse?



So, it is entirely likely and predictable that if Israel decides it has no choice but to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before Iran can produce nuclear weapons, Obama would likely act to block that military intervention by whatever means necessary, including a U.S. military attack on Israel. Why would he not do it? Who would stop him?

Rand Paul: 'No' On DREAM Act And Birthright Citizenship

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul recently sat down with the far-right outlet WorldNetDaily to discuss immigration reform, an issue about which he has been all over the map. The Republican presidential candidate, who stated in 2013 that any legal status for undocumented immigrants should “start with DREAM Act kids” but backed last year’s GOP plan to end the program that protects DREAMers from deportation, told WND that “I would’ve voted ‘no’" on the DREAM Act.

Paul also told WND’s Taylor Rose that he wants to end birthright citizenship, a key provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, claiming that it is turning the U.S. into “a magnet for the world” and lets “everybody come in here, have children and they all become citizens.”

Paul added that while it isn’t “fair” to send DREAMers “back to Mexico,” it also isn’t fair “to say they can stay and everybody else like them from Mexico can come also.”

“The DREAM Act alone I would’ve voted ‘no’ on because the DREAM Act didn’t fix the border,” he said. This led the senator to criticize the Motor Voter Act, saying that it has allowed for undocumented immigrants to commit voter fraud.

When Rose asked Paul about the unemployment rate in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota, the senator blamed it on immigration, adding that he “hasn’t met any farmers who say Americans will pick crops.”

“Americans are unwilling to work for $8 an hour and pick crops because they can sit at home and watch soap operas for government pay for 10 bucks an hour,” Paul said. “The problem is, we have a very generous safety net, maybe overly generous. What I say is if they look like you or look like me and they hop out of their truck, they shouldn’t be on disability.”

Referring to a “picture of a Social Security office floating around the internet,” he said that Americans won’t take low-paying jobs because it is easier to claim that they are disabled in order to collect Social Security benefits.

Return Of The Rubio Birthers

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s announcement yesterday that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination has brought back a strain of far-right birtherism that contends that Rubio is not eligible to be president because his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

In its write-up of Rubio’s announcement, birther outlet WorldNetDaily (which has been a big promoter of Ted Cruz’s candidacy) cites unnamed people who “contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency”:

Meanwhile, others contend Rubio’s not even a natural-born citizen and therefore, ineligible to seek the presidency. Rubio’s parents, as WND previously reported on at least two occasions, were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, on May 28, 1971, to Mario and Oriales Rubio, who were born in Cuba, though the senator has not released his birth certificate for the world to scrutinize.

As WND reported in 2011, Rubio press secretary Alex Burgos said the senator’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time Marco was born in 1971.

Then four years after Marco was born, “Mario and Oriales Rubio became naturalized U.S. citizens on Nov. 5, 1975,” Burgos told WND.

WND links to a 2012 article by its chief birther reporter Jerome Corsi, who cited far-right attorney Larry Klayman’s argument that the Constitution “requires a person eligible to be president to be born to parents who are each U.S. citizens at the time of the birth.”

Mainstream legal scholarship — as exhaustively detailed in a 2009 Congressional Research Service memo  and a 2011 report — rejects this, finding that the Constitution merely requires that a president have been eligible for U.S. citizenship at birth. Under Klayman’s rule, not only would President Obama be ineligible for the presidency, but so would Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Cruz.

The website of Bradlee Dean, a longtime Michele Bachmann ally, also published an essay yesterday claiming that Rubio is ineligible for the presidency and calling the senator an “anchor baby.”

Suzanne Hamner writes on Dean’s “Sons of Liberty” website: “If Obama is hailed as the ‘first’ black president, one could say Rubio is the ‘first’ anchor baby contender.”

“Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?” she asks.

Wikipedia, while not considered a truly reliable source, states Marco Rubio was born on May 23, 1971, to “Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia” who were Cubans that “immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as US citizens in 1975.”

So, Sen. Marco Rubio needs to clearly establish his eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States in order to receive the party nomination. Neither of Rubio’s parents were citizens of the United States until 1975, four years after Rubio’s birth. Under this scenario, one could acquaint it to the “anchor baby born today being elected president upon reaching the age of thirty-five and living within the US for fourteen years.” Is Marco Rubio comfortable in claiming “natural born” citizen status in order to run for president? Clearly, he is. But, Rubio is ineligible to run and hold the office of the President of the United States. If Obama is hailed as the “first” black president, one could say Rubio is the “first” anchor baby contender. If Rubio is a supporter, protector and defender of the Constitution, he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

Rubio’s supporters, along with those of Ted Cruz, will vehemently defend their candidate’s natural born citizen status regardless of the evidence to the contrary based on history indicating the framers did not subscribe to the natural-born citizen status as being anything but a child born of two citizen parents. Those who admit neither of these two candidates truly meets that all important requirement will declare that “it’s our turn,” “the Dems did it with Obama, so can we,” or “they would be better than Obama.” The problem in all of this remains consistency with the law.

The Democrats cannot protest as it would confirm that Obama would be ineligible thereby exposing the criminal, lawless, treasonous activities of the Democratic National Committee, key Democrats in Congress, such as Pelosi, the Republican National Committee, key Republicans in Congress, RINOs and complicity of the state governments in allowing Obama on the ticket, not to mention the numerous judges at every level who have upheld Obama’s eligibility. And, why would judges refuse to hear valid legal arguments opposing Obama’s eligibility if the definition of “natural born citizen” did not mean an individual born to two citizen parents?

Judges have denied hearing the case based on “standing” and “establishment of harm.” Isn’t every US citizen harmed by an individual holding the office of the President when eligibility is in question? Shouldn’t every US citizen have “standing” in a case such as this? It would mean the President has divided loyalty and would possibly not conduct business within the confines of the Constitution nor have the best interest of the country at heart. Are we not actually witness to that with Obama? Haven’t we, as citizens of this nation, been harmed by the current ineligible occupant of the Oval Office?

Alan Keyes: Obama Wants Nuclear War To Obtain A Third Term

In a WorldNetDaily column titled “Is Iran Deal Part Of Obama-3rd-Term Scheme?,” conservative activist Alan Keyes writes today that President Obama has made a secret deal with Iran that allows the country to “unleash nuclear destruction” since it would give him the justification to launch a Nazi-style “coup d’état” here at home.

Keyes, who was Obama’s GOP challenger in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois, alleges that Obama is aiding both ISIS and Iran in order to create an excuse to illegaly remain in power after his second term in office.

“What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?,” Keyes asks.

“Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States?”

A steady diet of meticulously depicted violence, served up in films and interactive video games, has probably brought some Americans to the point where they react to recorded images of beheadings and other mass atrocities from a place of emotional stupefaction. But if Americans want to think clearly about the Obama faction’s role in arming ISIS terror, or their treacherous deal with the moguls of Shiite terrorism in Iran, we must overcome this stupefaction.

The fact that Obama has come to terms with such masterminds of evil ought to produce the sort of revulsion that demands an emetic remedy, lest we die. So does the likelihood that Obama, Hilary [sic] Clinton and their friends in the Muslim Brotherhood had a hand in arming the malevolent Islamic State forces Obama’s de facto alliance with Iran now purports to fight.

The “experts” and pundits reacting with alarm to Obama’s apparently self-contradictory rapprochement with deadly evil speak of his ambition to secure a triumph for his foreign-policy legacy, or his failure to appreciate the real nature of the dangers involved in thinking that Iran can be safely installed as the stabilizing power in the Middle East. Most don’t even hint at what may be his most sinister aim, i.e., “to take America down.”

The Obama administration now appears to include people at the highest level disloyal enough to form a de facto alliance with America’s most outspoken and implacable enemies. They have agreed to look the other way while Iran finishes the work needed to construct weapons that put them in a position to force us to choose between complying with their agenda and unleashing nuclear destruction.

Who among us thinks that, like the generation fresh from the triumphs of the last World War, our current self-serving politicos have the experience, moral probity and courage to face that choice of evils? Who is honestly sure that they aren’t already preparing an exit strategy that leaves their own factional power intact, even if America is no longer free?

What if Obama isn’t looking to his “legacy”? What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?

There it is. The unthinkable scenario predicated upon the thought that Barack Obama and those who lifted him to power are precisely what they appear to be – the enemies of America’s power, its prosperity, its constitutional liberty, its moral strength, indeed of everything about America except their own boundless ambition. Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States? What certainty do we have that, in some secret, back-channel codicil, this agreement is not already in place?



You may believe a coup d’état “could never happen here.” But the danger we face is not some beer hall putsch. It’s is more like the consolidation of tyrannical power Hitler’s faction completed after he was appointed chancellor of Germany. But if such a denouement is already in view for the United States, isn’t it urgently necessary to begin doing what must be done to prevent its completion? As food for urgent thought, I will propose such a strategy in the next article to be published on my blog. Are you willing to think about it yet?

WorldNetDaily: Gay Rights Laws Will 'Outlaw' Christianity, Usher In Communist-Style Totalitarianism

The conservative conspiracy theory outlet WorldNetDaily is out with a petition today asking lawmakers throughout the country to “ensure that religious freedom in America is not crushed by rigid imposition of ‘non-discrimination’ laws based on sexual behavior and sexual identification.”

WND’s petition warns that anyone who opposes LGBT equality will soon be “prosecuted and legally driven out of their homes and businesses” as a result of gay rights laws, which the outlet believes are “strikingly reminiscent of communist totalitarian countries like Mao-era China.”

The petition goes on call gay marriage a “social experiment being forced down the throats of a once-Christian nation” that will eventually make the practice of Christianity “effectively illegal, forcing faithful believers underground – just as faithful believers are forced underground in many parts of the world under the cruel dominance of totalitarian ideologies.”

Any official who supports the “naked totalitarianism” of the LGBT rights movement, WND adds, seeks to “outlaw” Christianity and “stamp out” freedom.

Whereas, the spectacle of an innocent 21-year-old Christian girl, who, for honestly replying to a TV reporter's hypothetical question and saying her family's pizza parlor wouldn't cater a homosexual wedding, was the recipient of a mountain of obscene abuse and death threats, including threats and incitement to burn down the family's business;

Whereas, dozens of similar cases abound, where Christian business people, just wishing to live true to their faith, are being sued, criminally indicted, prosecuted, fined, forced to violate their deepest morals or close their business, and to undergo forced re-education ("sensitivity training") strikingly reminiscent of communist totalitarian countries like Mao-era China;

Whereas, rigid and inflexible enforcement of the LGBT movement's core legal dogma – namely, that "gay" is the new black – means that well-intentioned, law-abiding Americans who harbor religious reservations about homosexuality or same-sex marriage may well find themselves regarded as comparable to the most detestable racists such as Ku Klux Klansmen and neo-Nazis, and prosecuted and legally driven out of their homes and businesses;



Whereas, "same-sex marriage," which no country, culture, political establishment, ideology, religion or historical era has ever endorsed, let alone practiced, in the entire history of mankind, is suddenly now an urgent social experiment being forced down the throats of a once-Christian nation by activist judges, tireless gay activists and their enablers and fellow travelers in the news and entertainment media;

Whereas, if current trends continue, within a short time the practice of traditional Christianity – the faith that guided virtually all of America's founding fathers, as well as most major Western leaders for the past 2,000 years – will be rendered effectively illegal, forcing faithful believers underground – just as faithful believers are forced underground in many parts of the world under the cruel dominance of totalitarian ideologies;



By all accounts, the LGBT movement has overreached to the point of embracing naked totalitarianism, fomenting laws that: outlaw counseling help for minors who want to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions; decree that boys and young men must be allowed to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms if they identify with the opposite sex (and vice versa); mandate pro-homosexual indoctrination of children as young as five; integrate open homosexuals into the military; force same-sex marriage on the nation; and now, criminalize Christian businesspeople for simply disapproving of homosexuality or declining to actively participate in same-sex weddings on moral and religious grounds.

To America's leaders: Do you really believe it is good to effectively outlaw practice of the faith that formed the moral and spiritual foundation of our nation from its birth? If not, we urge you to demonstrate some genuine courage in the face of a nationwide campaign to stamp out America's most foundational liberty – freedom of religion – just to eliminate even the most respectful and conscience-driven dissent by Christians who don't want to be forced to participate in activities their faith tells them are immoral and wrong.

WND 'Expert': Lunar Eclipse Divine Warning About Iranian Nuclear Deal

Over the weekend, some parts of the world witnessed the third in a series of four total lunar eclipses — or “blood moons” — occurring in the space of about a year and a half, starting last April. And once again, as it did with the previous two eclipses in this cycle, WorldNetDaily brought in its blood moon “expert,” Mark Biltz, to comment on what the astronomical occurrence means for world events.

Biltz, reliably, tied the event to the nuclear deal with Iran, telling WND that the eclipse was a message from God likening President Obama to the biblical figure Haman, who plotted to kill all the Jews in Persia:

Pastor Mark Biltz, the discoverer of the Blood Moons phenomenon, says current events in the Middle East are “totally tied to these Blood Moons.”

“A number of rabbis have said this, that Obama comes across as a kind of Haman figure. Haman we recall was a Persian official who wanted to kill the Jews living within that empire. Of course, the modern heir of the Persian Empire is Iran, now the Islamic Republic. And we have Iranian generals openly saying that they want to destroy Israel. God is clearly sending us a sign reminding us of these parallels.”

WND also turned to End Times author Joel Richardson, who warned that the nuclear deal with Iran would bring about harsh divine judgement against American political leaders in the Last Days:

But Richardson says it is not just Israel that is at risk but the United States. Barack Obama, he suggests, has done nothing less than open the nation to the risk of divine judgment.

“More than any other name, the creator of Heaven and Earth, the God of the Bible calls Himself, the God of Israel. Through His prophets, He has repeatedly warned that a tremendous punishment awaits the vessels through which tribulation falls upon the Jewish people. (Isaiah 10:5-12).

“It is the duty of Christians throughout the earth to warn our president that such actions will result in the most severe punishment when Jesus returns. As much as we all love the various images of Jesus the Messiah gently cradling a baby lamb over his shoulders, the Scriptures also speak of the fact that when Jesus returns, ‘He will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth’ (Psalm 110:5-6).

“While the global atmosphere of increasing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist sentiment may be make it quite fashionable and hip to treat little Israel as our president is doing, the fact remains that the day is looming where Barack Obama, along a host of leaders from Muslim nations and the UN will look into the very Jewish eyes of their creator and judge, and He will render to them the righteous punishment for how they have treated His brethren, the Jewish people,” he said.

“As a Bible believing Christian, we are called to pray for our leaders. Today my prayer for President Obama and the majority of our present government leaders is for repentance. At this point, only a genuine and deep repentance will spare them from the wrath of Jesus, who is coming back to restore the Jewish Kingdom, exactly as He promised (Matthew 19:28).”

Right-Wing Pundit: America Under 'Sodomy Law'

Conservative talk show host Jesse Lee Peterson writes in WorldNetDaily today that just as “militant Islam demands Shariah law, homosexual pressure groups demand ‘sodomy law.’”

In a column titled “What’s Wrong With Discrimination?,” Peterson claims that “gays never wanted equality,” warning that LGBT people are instead acting “like fascists” and using the schools and the media to “brainwash” children.

Welcome to the “new” America.

LGBT groups have been effective in linking their immoral cause to the noble civil rights movement. In reality, gays never wanted equality. They wanted society to accept their sinful lifestyle, or else. LGBT groups – to be blunt – act like fascists. Just like militant Islam demands Shariah law, homosexual pressure groups demand “sodomy law.”

So what’s so bad about discrimination anyway? Discrimination has always been a hallmark of freedom. The ability to discriminate is given to us by God so that we can make right choices. People discriminate all the time. We discriminate when we date, marry, pick our friends and in countless other ways, just like homosexuals do. And LGBT groups and liberals discriminate against people of faith all day long!



Christian families today are largely not modeling authentic Christianity. The proof of that is in the children. They have shallow roots that are easily pulled up by a culture that mocks traditional values.

Christian children are led into the government schools, like sheep to the slaughter. The schools use a well-developed brainwashing system: 1) Challenge the traditional beliefs, 2) Replace with new immoral beliefs, 3) Demonstrate a consensus about the new belief – “Here’s what educated, cool people think,” 4) Repetition: Keep pounding the message home, day after day, year after year, until it sticks deep.

The public-school system, the liberal news media and Hollywood also reinforce the lie that the older generation is “intolerant.” After all, they’re the descendants of slaveholders and those who denied women the vote. Oh yeah, and they “hate” gays.

Mat Staver: Gays Just Like Hamas Terrorists

In an interview with WorldNetDaily yesterday, anti-gay legal activist Mat Staver once again compared gay rights advocates to terrorists, telling WND radio host Greg Corombos that the LGBT community won’t stop until it wins a “special, protected, preferred status for homosexuality” and “then if they get that, boy are they going to come and hammer you hard with it.”

“Their agenda doesn’t stop until they are completely dominating anybody who ultimately does not not only agree but promote and affirm their lifestyle,” Staver said. “Their agenda will not stop, it will ultimately result in fines and prosecution. This is an intolerant agenda.”

He went on to liken gay rights supporters to the Hamas terrorists who control the Gaza Strip: "This is like dealing with terrorists, negotiating with people who have a zero-sum game and they don’t want you to exist. It is like the Palestinians and the Israelis: the Palestinians in Gaza don’t like the Jews to exist in the land, so no matter how much land you give them for so-called peace, it doesn’t really satisfy them. There is no satisfying this radical agenda, they don’t want you to exist. If you do exist, they want you to promote and applaud their sinful lifestyle.”

Right-Wing Pundit: 'Gov. Pence Is The Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Of 2015'

Writing today in WorldNetDaily, Liberty Counsel communications director Charla Bansley proposed that pastors and “those victimized by religious intolerance” from all around the country hold a massive rally in Indianapolis to defend Indiana’s ‘religious freedom’ law.

“Gov. Pence is the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of 2015,” the Religious Right activist wrote.

She also made the erroneous claim that the Indiana law is just like other versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Can conservatives responding to the recent controversy in Indiana over religious freedom learn anything from liberals about messaging? After the Michael Brown shooting, liberal leaders from the left, such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and secular progressive communities from across America seized the opportunity and flocked to Ferguson, Missouri, to take over the narrative, blaming Brown’s death on “institutional racism.” Universities as far away as George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, held diversity discussions. College students from all over the country joined the crowds walking the streets chanting “Hands up, don’t shoot.”

Today, the church must contend for the faith and the faithful in like manner. What churches and religious universities will take a page out of the liberal playbook to rally, to march, to hold candle vigils and to speak out? What pastors will go to Indianapolis to stand by Gov. Mike Pence and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Which organizations will help pay the way for those victimized by religious intolerance – bakers, photographers, venue owners – to make their way to Indianapolis? When will we as a church begin matching our words with action? If not now, then when?



Pence said Sunday that the new state law “is not about discrimination. This is about empowering people to confront government overreach.” Unfortunately, those words went over the heads of most people watching the interview. Homosexual activists went to the streets claiming the law would legalize discrimination, and Americans believed the false narrative. The truth is a federal RFRA was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and 19 other states have passed similar laws, but not one case of discrimination exists. The real cases of discrimination are the religious businesses who have been sued for refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding: the Catholic B&B owners who didn’t want to host a same-sex wedding in Vermont, the baker in Oregon, the photographer in New Mexico, the florist in Washington and a host of others.

Gov. Pence is the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of 2015, courageously defending the bakers, photographers, florists, ministers, county clerks, and owners of wedding venues who, after a lifetime of acquiring skills and building businesses, have seen their livelihoods destroyed, forced to pay exorbitant fines and even threatened with jail.

WND Pundit: HIV-Positive People Should Be Quarantined

Lord Christopher Monckton writes in WorldNetDaily today that liberals, in order to be consistent with their support for public health efforts, should run campaigns that highlight “the misery, disease and death that homosexuality – no less than smoking – brings to its unfortunate practitioners” and to people who are “drawn into the homosexual deathstyle.”

He claims that liberals are hypocrites for speaking out about the dangers of smoking and climate change while, at the same time, trying to “promote ‘gay’ ‘marriage.’”

In fact, Monckton goes so far to call for the “immediate, compulsory, permanent isolation of carriers” of HIV.

Life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, it is estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men now aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday.

Now, we can always hope that the development of anti-retroviral drugs has helped since 18 years ago. However, the life expectancy of a smoker is 10 years shorter than that of a non-smoker, which – even assuming a dramatic improvement in homosexual lifespans since the 1990s – makes promiscuous homosexuality no less dangerous to the health of those who practice it than smoking.

Yet leftists, instead of insisting – as they do with smoking – that public-health campaigns should warn people of the medical dangers of homosexuality, they “celebrate” it and promote “gay” “marriage.”

The facts are clear enough. But the left does not support the facts because the facts do not support the left.

What conclusion should be drawn? It is surely this: Public policy on questions from homosexuality to climate change – where the left is similarly cavalier with the facts (just read any statement from Mr. Obama about the climate) – should be determined on the basis of fact as well as fashion and sentiment.

The Church’s continuous teaching on homosexuality is not some outmoded, fuddy-duddy, far-right, redneck hate-crime. It is born of love for those who might otherwise be drawn into the homosexual deathstyle. It is intended to prevent the misery, disease and death that homosexuality – no less than smoking – brings to its unfortunate practitioners.

Thirty years ago, I pointed out in the American Spectator that in the absence of the usual public-health measure to contain a new and fatal infection – immediate, compulsory, permanent isolation of carriers – millions would die of HIV. I also pointed out that Western sensibilities would not permit the identification and isolation of carriers.

Birther King Joseph Farah Cheers Canadian-Born Ted Cruz's 'Electrifying' Presidential Announcement

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has been trying to backtrack on his years of promoting birther conspiracy theories about President Obama, which center around the claim that Obama was born abroad and has a fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificate, in order to promote his new favorite GOP presidential candidate: Ted Cruz.

Farah, who has suggested in the past that Obama is ineligible to be president because he was secretly born abroad to an American mother and a Kenyan father, does not seem to have a problem with Cruz, who – unlike Obama – was actually born abroad. Cruz has an American mother and a father who was a Cuban national at the time of his birth.

The champion of the birther cause praised Cruz in a column this week as a Reagan-like leader who could not only win the presidency in a landslide but could also stand “on his own two feet without the assistance of a teleprompter,” which Farah hails as “refreshing after six years of Barack Obama.”

It’s been a long time since I’ve heard any political figure do what Sen. Ted Cruz did yesterday in his announcement he is seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency.

He delivered an electrifying, motivational, rousing case for liberty – explaining why it’s not too late, why Americans don’t need to lower their expectations, how this country has overcome greater odds in its history.



He is going to be a formidable candidate. More importantly, he’s a breath of fresh air for giving Americans hope again – the kind of hope we haven’t had since Ronald Reagan was articulating his vision of national renewal.

He does it standing on his own two feet without the assistance of a teleprompter – also refreshing after six years of Barack Obama.



I am not making an endorsement for the presidency here. But I am giving Ted Cruz a big hallelujah, a heartfelt amen.

This is the way I wish other Republicans and conservatives would talk. There’s a reason Ronald Reagan, with similar views, was able to win landslide victories in the 1980s. It’s because he was the Great Communicator. Ted Cruz may be one, too.



Unlike most of my colleagues in the media, I like that Ted Cruz denies man-made catastrophic climate change. Why? Because it’s not real. It’s a scam for more government control over the lives of individual citizens. It’s one of the biggest and worst collectivist schemes in history.

Unlike most of my colleagues in the media, I like that Ted Cruz helped shut down the government. I’d like to see much of the federal government permanently shut down to be in line with the limits of the Constitution.

Unlike most of my colleagues in the media, I like that Ted Cruz invoked God and liberty so frequently in his announcement.

I don’t think he’s out of step with mainstream American values. Not at all. I think his message is going to resonate. He’s a serious contender.

Rick Scarborough: Gay Marriage Will 'Unleash The Spirit Of Hell On The Nation'

Texas pastor Rick Scarborough took to WorldNetDaily today to expound on his call for anti-gay civil disobedience if the Supreme Court strikes down bans on same-sex marriage, warning that such a ruling will usher in attacks on Christianity and “a brave new world with tyrannical laws and regulations.”

Insisting that the Supreme Court will “silence” Christians and the “thousands of ‘former homosexuals,’” Scarborough compared a potential marriage equality ruling to Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell.

“Now the high court is threatening to unleash the spirit of hell on the nation, if they deny what nature clearly teaches on this subject of gender and marriage,” Scarborough said. “The time has come for pastors and leaders to stand up and declare what innately we all know to be true – that this idea is morally unacceptable and we will not allow it proceed without our objection. There can be no compromise on this issue.”

With all due respect, I must refuse to honor any ordinance or judicial ruling that makes restricting marriage to a union between one man and one woman, which God ordained and our nation throughout our history protected, invalid. Regardless of the consequences.

It is the duty of all Christ’s followers to lovingly uphold a standard of righteousness and be true to God’s Word, which never changes. God’s Word provides an offer of hope and forgiveness through Jesus to anyone who is caught up in sin, but if we compromise His Word, on what authority can we offer His hope?

Homosexuality is a sin – but it is not an unforgivable sin nor worse than any other sin. Though some who have chosen homosexuality may choose to reject me for saying this, I am willing to suffer such if that is the cost of being true to God’s Word. If Christians quietly allow marriage to be redefined, we will find ourselves being forced to be quiet as judges impose the acceptance of more and more aberrant behaviors.

We will soon find ourselves in a brave new world with tyrannical laws and regulations forcing us not only to accommodate same-sex marriage but to keep our message of love and forgiveness to ourselves, lest our message cause some to be offended. Paul spoke clearly about such a time as this: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

Those who are advancing this agenda want Christians to be silenced, thinking that to be a good thing. But if they succeed, they will cut off the very Gospel that can change their lives and provide hope and forgiveness, not only for sexual sin, but for all sin.

There are thousands of “former homosexuals” who can testify that Jesus has the power to set us free from any sin. Traditional marriage doesn’t discriminate. There are many former homosexuals now rearing their children in such marriages, and they are living proof of God’s forgiveness and matchless love.

That alone is reason enough for Christians to defend marriage as God designed it.

We must be reminded that the courts are not the final word on this subject. The Supreme Court has gotten it wrong more than they want to admit. More than 200 previous decisions of the Supreme Court have either been rescinded or overturned. Some of those past rulings have been infamous for wrongheadedness, like Dred Scott v. Sandford or Buck v. Bell.



Now the high court is threatening to unleash the spirit of hell on the nation, if they deny what nature clearly teaches on this subject of gender and marriage. The time has come for pastors and leaders to stand up and declare what innately we all know to be true – that this idea is morally unacceptable and we will not allow it proceed without our objection. There can be no compromise on this issue.

We are witnessing a culture March toward Madness!

Larry Klayman: Obama Seeks To 'Be Rewarded With 72 Virgins In Islamic Heaven'

Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman took to WorldNetDaily on Friday to defend Fox News pundit Andrea Tantaros’s claim that President Obama is anti-Semitic, alleging that Obama is not only an anti-Semite but also an “ultra-leftist, pro-Muslim, racist.”

Warning that “our Muslim president” is “selling out the country to the radical mullahs in Tehran,” Klayman said that the president wants Iran to get a nuclear weapon because “in so doing, Obama will have furthered the will of his faux god, allah, and been a good Muslim.”

“Perhaps he will be rewarded with 72 virgins in Islamic ‘heaven,’” he said.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. It’s time that we stop mincing words and call it like it is. We have a president who lied his way into the White House and continues to lie while in office. He is not a Christian. He is a Muslim, through his father and given his Islamic education as a child, as well as his continuing association with black-Muslim despots, Jew-haters like Rev. Louis Farrakhan and a host of others who are well-known for their racism and bigotry. This explains how he acts and does not act with regard to Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the rest of us. Thus far, in the media only Andrea Tantaros of Fox News has raised the issue of Obama’s apparent anti-Semitism, suggesting Obama is a racist and an anti-Semite, plain and simple.



So the reality is that Obama did not want regime change in Iran. As a fellow Muslim by blood – under Shariah law he is Muslim by virtue of his father’s lineage – and in his heart and soul sympathetic with the so-called religion and culture, his actions vis-a-vis Iran, Israel, ISIS, the Palestine Liberation Organization and many other Islamic states, interests and terrorist groups can all be explained. Wherever Obama was born, he is not an American in heart and soul, but a traitor in all senses of the word. It’s time to start saying it like it is; and that goes for the Republican Party, which has also danced around this reality with couched and cowardly words over the last six years of the administration.



The Republicans were afraid to harshly criticize Obama for fear of being called racists. Yes, the race card is powerful in this country, particularly since the president is an African-American, and he had the bully pulpit to politically neuter the great elephant. But our Founding Fathers were not so timid when it came to calling it like it was with regard to the tyranny of King George III – and the king was a saint compared with Obama and his ultra-leftist, pro-Muslim, racist, compromised minions in government and outside of government, like Attorney General Eric Holder and the Rev. Al Sharpton, to name just two.

So here were are, on the brink of our Muslim president selling out the country to the radical mullahs in Tehran, who will build nuclear weapons and missiles to either annihilate Christians and Jews, or at a minimum use these weapons of mass destruction to blackmail us into submission as their Middle Eastern and worldwide Islamic caliphate marches on.

And, in so doing, Obama will have furthered the will of his faux god, allah, and been a good Muslim. Perhaps he will be rewarded with 72 virgins in Islamic “heaven.”

Rick Scarborough: Congressmen Back Plan To Go To Jail To Defy Gay Marriage

Anti-gay pastor Rick Scarborough, notorious for insisting that HIV/AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality, is working with Religious Right leader James Dobson, televangelist James Robison and conservative legal activist Mat Staver to recruit leading Religious Right activists and politicians to sign a pledge to commit civil disobedience in protest of a potential Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

Scarborough told WorldNetDaily in an interview yesterday that once gay marriage becomes the law of the land, there will be mass arrests of Christians, even though such an event has never taken place in the dozens of states where gay marriage is legal. The government “better have a lot of prisons and jails,” Scarborough said, if they dare to legalize same-sex marriage.

He added that members of Congress “are lining up to sign the document” pledging to go to jail rather than recognize a Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.

Back in 2009, Scarborough similarly warned that Christians would be hauled off to jail after a gay-inclusive federal hate crimes law was signed into law, which obviously didn’t happen.

A team of prominent Christian leaders is preparing a statement that will inform the public – including justices on the U.S. Supreme Court – that they will engage in civil disobedience rather than follow a ruling that establishes homosexual “marriage” in the United States.

Among those leading the charge is James Dobson of Family Talk Radio, Rick Scarborough of Vision America Action, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and James Robison of Life Today, whose brand new publication called The Stream reported on a recent telephone conference call discussing the issue.

Stream Executive Editor Jay Richards told WND there were about 20 other Christian leaders on the call. He said members of Congress have expressed an interest in the plan, which will be disclosed in the next few days in a statement regarding marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, Scarborough wasted no time in an interview with WND explaining what is, and is not, going to happen.

“We’re taking a very adamant stand,” he said. “If the court declares same-sex ‘marriage’ to be on the same par as a civil right, that’s a bridge too far. We won’t obey. We’ll go to jail.”



Scarborough confirmed congressmen “are lining up to sign the document.”

“The undeniable case is that when same-sex “marriage’ becomes, declared by the Supreme Court, as the law of the land, they will begin to enforce it, like all civil rights laws.”

That is where the civil disobedience will loom large.

“We’re saying, before that, we will never obey that tyrannical law. It’s counter to natural law, and God’s higher law.

“We will simply refuse to comply with recognizing same-sex ‘marriage’ as legitimate,” he said. “The Supreme Court does not have the inherent right [to make that change]. We’ll going to continue doing what we’ve always done.”

He said the hope is that thousands of churches and millions of Americans will join.

Those who plan to use the power of federal law enforcement to enforce same-sex marriage, he said, “better have a lot of prisons and jails.”

WND: Solar Eclipse A Warning To America About Relationship With Israel

Although WorldNetDaily frequently reminds its readers that the earth is just 6,000 years old, the far-right outlet reports today that an event which “only takes place once every 100,000 years” is “an unmistakable sign of judgment.”

According to WND, “biblical experts” are excited that a solar eclipse on Friday “will darken the sun just in time for the sunrise at the North Pole,” which obviously means that God is about to punish Europe, and possibly the U.S., for its allegedly poor treatment of Israel and growing “anti-Israel sentiment.”

A solar eclipse coming on March 20 won’t just be an astronomical wonder – it will be an event that may be unprecedented in human history, according to biblical experts who say it is an unmistakable sign of judgment.



Such an astronomical event only takes place once every 100,000 years, experts said.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Root Source co-founder Bob O’Dell pointed to the significance of an eclipse visible from the North Pole at this particular time.

“The North Pole can’t really be called the territory of any particular nation or people,” O’Dell said. “This is likely a message from God to the entire world.”



Pastor Mark Biltz, author of “Blood Moons: Decoding the Imminent Heavenly Signs,” sees a heavenly warning in the consequences of the eclipse, especially for the northern Europeans, who will be most affected.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Biltz explained, “In Jewish tradition, a total solar eclipse is a warning to the Gentiles and a sign of judgment on the nations. When we look at where the darkness will be, it will be in northern European countries like England and Sweden where we see the rise of Islam and anti-Israel sentiment. Europeans especially should take heed.”



“This comes at a time when American aid for Israel has become an important political issue in the United States. But Israelis know they cannot put their survival in the hands of one who wishes their demise.

“All throughout history, Israel has put their hopes in foreign help rather than trusting in the God of Israel. From King Ahaz to King Zedekiah and throughout history. While the U.S. needs to back Israel, Israel needs to rely on the God of Israel.”

Biltz also points to other upcoming signs that will take place on feast days. There will be another solar eclipse on The Feast of Trumpets, on Sept. 13, 2015.

The final blood moon, a “super blood moon,” will appear during the Festival of Tabernacles, which is also known as a period of judgment for all the nations. Biltz believes that this is a sign that momentous events are in motion.

Paranoia-Rama: Gays And Immigrants Will Steal Your Freedom In Obama's Third Term

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

This week, we learned from the Right that gay people and immigrants are out to destroy our freedoms, with the help of President Obama, who is secretly preparing to stay in office for a third term.

5) Gay Marriage Threatens Freedom

Speaking with an Iowa talk show host this week, Sen. Ted Cruz once again appealed to the anti-gay Right when he railed against judges, like the members of the Iowa Supreme Court, who strike down bans on same-sex marriage. Cruz alleged that such rulings pose “ a real danger to our liberty” and are in defiance of the Constitution:

Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council also described marriage equality as a threat to freedom this week, writing that the Supreme Court is “headed for another Dred Scott opinion” if it finds same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional, referring to the ruling which said that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens.

“If the Court overturns marriage, it will not only further delegitimize itself as an institution, it will gravely damage American society,” he said. “And it will undermine the ‘consent of the governed’ — the only basis for just laws.”

Blackwell, notorious for his efforts as Ohio’s secretary of state to stifle voting in  the 2004 election, went on to compare judges who rule in favor of marriage equality to officials in the Jim Crow South who restricted the voting rights of African Americans: “We should remember Selma and the ‘Bloody Sunday’ that was necessary to achieve the too-long-denied equal voting rights for all our citizens. Today, rogue federal judges are engaged in the most massive case of voter suppression we have seen since the days of Jim Crow! Across the country, but especially in the South, black Americans joined other citizens in voting to affirm true marriage.”

But neither Blackwell nor Cruz can claim the prize for the most distraught outburst against gay marriage of the week, as that honor belongs to Indiana politician John Price, who suggested that Americans should “flee” the U.S. before the Supreme Court rules on marriage rights.

4) Gay Twilight Zone

So how exactly does LGBT equality threaten freedom?

Well, according to Texas GOP Chairman Tom Mechler, writing in an op-ed titled “ Free speech, rights are under attack,” the LGBT rights movement is threatening his freedom not to see photos of gay people:

I’ve watched with dismay the controversy surrounding Amarillo Town Club’s family membership policy, which was placed prominently before our community by the Amarillo Globe-News on March 2 with its front-page article showing a picture of two angry-looking homosexual women.

The story was also mentioned by a reader in a letter to the editor (Letter: Shame on Amarillo Town Club, March 6, amarillo.com) who believed the business’ conduct was “shameful.”

Shameful? Sometimes I feel like we are living in the twilight zone.

Mechler went on to write that people who criticize his view that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be legalized are actually attacking the freedom of speech: “What I find troubling is the incredible attack that has been launched on free speech. I love this country, and as an American the Bill of Rights gives me the right to say what I please.”

3) Immigrants Will Take Your Guns

Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt is a staunch opponent of immigration reform since he believes that new citizens will vote Democratic and “take away our guns.”

Pratt expanded on this theory in an interview with Armed America Radio recently, explaining that immigrants have a “dependent mentality” and thus don’t understand what it’s like to want to protect yourself from bodily harm.

“A dependent class that depends on the government for their income, for all kinds of financial and other assistance, is not generally of a mind to be able to protect itself, which is after all the most important part about living, is staying alive from one moment to the next in case some dirtbag wants to try to terminate you,” he said. “And if you don’t think enough of your own freedom to take charge of that aspect of your existence, then of course you’re likely to expect handouts and ‘more, more, more’ because you have a dependent mentality.”

2) Another Petraeus Conspiracy Theory

When David Petraeus resigned as CIA director in response to allegations, to which he has since pled guilty, that he leaked classified information to a woman with whom he was having an affair, several conservative pundits rallied to his defense. According to these commentators, along with at least one GOP congressman, Petraeus was actually the victim of an Obama administration plot to stop him from exposing the truth about the 2012 Benghazi attack. In reality, since leaving the CIA, Petraeus has dismissed conspiracy theories surrounding the Benghazi attack and praised then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s response.

On Wednesday, as Media Matters notes, Rush Limbaugh made a similar claim, alleging that administration officials knew Petraeus was leaking sensitive material but “kept it in reserve” and acted on it only “when Petraeus refused to go out and spout the company line on Benghazi.” Limbaugh said that Clinton knew that this cover-up of the cover-up occurred, and that is why she used a personal email account at the State Department: “And so Mrs. Clinton knew that they knew, because she was secretary of state when they sent Petraeus out there to spout the company line and refused to do it. Plus she knew Obama — so that server is to keep things from Obama.”

1) Obama’s Third Term!

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah wants his readers to know that he takes very seriously concerns “out there across the fruited plain” that President Obama will defy the U.S. Constitution and remain in office after the end of his second term. In fact, WND is so worried about this conspiracy theory that it even asked potential GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson how the American people can stop Obama’s (non-existent) plot.

Since “Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office,” according to Farah, there is reason to believe that “he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office” since he has no respect for the Constitution anyway. After all, Farah believes that the Obama family enjoys lavish vacations and is “living it up” on the taxpayers’ dime so much that they may refuse to leave the White House.

Farah even suggested that groups like People For the American Way are paving the way for the third Obama term since there is “simply no organized opposition to Obama’s illegal, criminal actions and behavior.” The only one who can stop Obama, Farah writes, may be Hillary Clinton.

Bachmann: DHS Extension Guarantees 'Obama Phones' And Voter Fraud For Undocumented Immigrants

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann told WorldNetDaily yesterday that the decision of the Republican leadership in Congress to ally with Democrats to pass a clean extension of funding for the Department of Homeland Security “ensures a Democrat likely will be elected president in 2016” because immigrants protected from deportation by President Obama’s executive actions will vote illegally for Democrats.

“Practically, that bill ensures a Democrat likely will be elected president in 2016 with the Congress willing to double cross the taxpayers by paying for five million illegal work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, Medicare, Medicaid and ultimately fraudulently directed efforts to get illegal aliens to the 2016 voting booth,” she said.

She also falsely claimed that undocumented immigrants covered by the orders would be eligible for food stamps and “Obama phones,” the name given by a racist meme to a communications program in place long before Obama became president.

WASHINGTON – The next president likely will be a Democrat and she, or he, can thank GOP leadership for that, according to Michele Bachmann.

The former congresswoman told WND that will be the result of top Republicans allowing the bill funding Obama’s amnesty for five million illegal immigrants to pass, immediately following the speech to Congress last week by Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Practically, that bill ensures a Democrat likely will be elected president in 2016 with the Congress willing to double cross the taxpayers by paying for five million illegal work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, Medicare, Medicaid and ultimately fraudulently directed efforts to get illegal aliens to the 2016 voting booth.”

She said GOP leaders “betrayed our trust with a real bait-and-switch because no one was running in favor of amnesty in November, and then we get this.”

Bachmann lamented, “We’ve come to expect to be disappointed by Democrats,” but it was especially disappointing to see her own party flip-flop, and she predicted disastrous results.

“This was the most consequential vote for Democrats to ensure their political party’s dominance into the future.”

Bachmann said the GOP leadership “knew the outcome of the vote would be to pay for Obama’s illegal, unconstitutional work permits for non-deported illegal aliens.”

“They also knew this would mean Social Security numbers, driver’s licenses, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Obama phones, Social Security disability benefits would also become accessible.”

And that, Bachmann observed, played right into the Democrats’ hands.

She said Democrats fully realized the vital importance and self-interest in voting for the bill, because, “They saw five million potential new voters for the all important 2016 election.”

But, didn’t Democrats assure Americans that illegal immigrants would not be able to vote?

“With Social Security numbers, a work permit and a driver’s license, they know no one doing voter registration would ever ask for legalization papers, because in light of Ferguson, that request would be construed as racist,” Bachmann retorted.

Ben Carson Upset Obama Hasn't Formed A Coalition To Fight ISIS, Which He Has

While Ben Carson ended his column at the conservative Washington Times after he announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, the Tea Party icon remains a columnist at WorldNetDaily, the conspiracy theorist’s outlet of choice.

Carson uses his WND platform today to declare that the U.S. should use “every military apparatus we have: banking facilities, sanctions, you name it,” against ISIS, adding that he “would not hesitate to put boots on the ground, because nothing should be off the table.”

Carson, who once said that he would allow U.S. troops to commit war crimes, suggested that President Obama should launch an anti-ISIS coalition: “We need to be the leader and take serious action. I am extraordinarily concerned about the fact that we are not responding to the barbaric acts that are taking place, as there is a tremendous leadership void. A coalition will form if it has a leader.”

Carson joins a growing right-wing chorus that seems completely unaware that Obama has already created a multinational anti-ISIS coalition which has pounded the group with thousands of airstrikes. If he cared to, he could easily find a daily list of U.S.-led airstrikes and news reports about U.S. support for the effort that has blunted the terrorist group’s momentum.

As the United States works to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, we are also dealing with ISIS as a formidable enemy that threatens our way of life. Every resource available should be used to eradicate the threat of ISIS while it is still in its adolescent stage. That means using every military apparatus we have: banking facilities, sanctions, you name it. And I would not hesitate to put boots on the ground, because nothing should be off the table.

This whole concept of “no boots on the ground because of what happened in Iraq” is silly. The threat Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida posed at that time was on a completely different level from what we are looking at now. It is immature to equate the two in terms of reactions. ISIS wants to destroy our way of life and us. We have two choices: We can sit back and wait for them, or we can use the resources we have to destroy them.

We need to be the leader and take serious action. I am extraordinarily concerned about the fact that we are not responding to the barbaric acts that are taking place, as there is a tremendous leadership void. A coalition will form if it has a leader.

I would commit everything to eliminating ISIS right now. We have to make sure that our military, which is extremely talented and maintains very good leadership, is not put into a compromised position where we are trying to micromanage things. Otherwise, we will be exposing many people to a state of grave danger.

Right-Wing Outlet: Obama May Give Himself Third Term So He Can Go On More Vacations

After years of promoting the birther myth, WorldNetDaily is now embracing the conspiracy theory that President Obama will illegally remain in power after the end of his second term. WND editor Joseph Farah writes today that since Obama was “pampered” in his youth and “never sacrificed or wanted for anything material in his life,” he and his family have been “living it up” in the White House by going on glamorous, taxpayer-funded vacations.

Citing Obama’s alleged love of vacationing, laziness and “immense satisfaction from ignoring the rule of law or placing himself and his office above it,” Farah concludes that there may be “a strong incentive for him to make the White House a more permanent home” rather than leave office.

“Do you really think Obama wants to give up the most powerful position in the world and one that affords him this kind of unimaginable, excessive, non-replicable luxury?” Farah asks.

The 2013 17-day vacation in Hawaii for the president, his family, and staff and security was estimated to cost over $4 million. Even that seems low ball to me.

And, as the story goes, they have two more years left.

Or, do they?

These folks are living it up.

Do you really think Obama wants to give up the most powerful position in the world and one that affords him this kind of unimaginable, excessive, non-replicable luxury?

Might this provide a strong incentive for him to make the White House a more permanent home?

Yes, there I go again.

It’s been a theme lately.

Last week, I dropped the suggestion that Obama might not actually vacate the office when his second term is up. Why should he? Just because it’s constitutional law? When has that ever stopped him from doing something? The answer is never.

Obama seems to derive immense satisfaction from ignoring the rule of law or placing himself and his office above it.



So let’s just consider the fact that Obama has never had it better – not even close. That’s not to say he hasn’t experienced the better things in life. He has. He got the best schooling. He’s been pampered. He never had to get his hands dirty. He never served in the military. He never sacrificed or wanted for anything material in his life.

Usually, people raised like that have high expectations for the future.

No doubt Obama will be in a position to make lots of money after the presidency, whenever he decides to end it. But it’s hard to imagine him enjoying six all-expense-paid vacations every year at his venue of choice. Not too many people live that kind of life – even with the “endowments” recent past presidents often get from their oil baron friends in the Middle East.

Do you think Obama’s about to give that up and move out of the White House to make room for Hillary Clinton?

I don’t know. The more I think about it, the less convinced I am.

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.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious