WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah patted himself on the back in a column yesterday for deciding to “risk prosecution for ‘hate thoughts’ by raising what the Bible says about homosexuality,” which he said will lead to God’s judgment.
“Judgment isn’t just coming. It is here,” Farah said. “This is it. It could get worse, but the Supreme Court ruling on marriage was, in fact, itself a form of divine judgment on America.”
Farah, who predicted that millions of people will flee America as a result of the gay marriage ruling, said that Americans are “getting their just deserts [sic], as are the rest of us who have not been the salt and light needed to hold back judgment.”
“Progress on this journey often comes in small increments, sometimes two steps forward, one step back, propelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens,” Obama said. “And then sometimes there are days like this, when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.”
I found that last line to be revealing.
In the Bible, justice indeed can come swiftly as an act of God. But the only time the word “thunderbolt” is used in Scripture, in Psalm 78:48, is to describe judgment on the land of Egypt during the Exodus.
That’s what I believe hit America like a thunderbolt Friday – not justice, but judgment.
God is giving America over to her lusts and pride because, like ancient Israel, she has turned away her heart from Him, though He was like a faithful husband to them both.
America is, indeed, getting justice, but not the way Obama and the moral anarchists think of it. They are getting their just deserts [sic], as are the rest of us who have not been the salt and light needed to hold back judgment.
Judgment isn’t just coming. It is here. This is it. It could get worse, but the Supreme Court ruling on marriage was, in fact, itself a form of divine judgment on America.
Let me risk prosecution for “hate thoughts” by raising what the Bible says about homosexuality, the behavior that opened this spiritual Pandora’s box. …
There were no thunderbolts last week. But, rest assured, they are coming.
Opponents of marriage equality have continued their absolutemeltdown in wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has urged the state to flout the ruling, told one church that Christians will now face massive persecution, suggesting that he is breaking the law by speaking against the ruling. “Sodomy for centuries was declared against the laws of nature and Nature’s God. And now if you say that in public, and I guess I have, am I violating somebody’s civil rights?” Moore asked. “What are Christians to do? Where do we go? Are we exiles in our own country?”
Satan is laughing himself silly right now. His demonic minions, both above and below, are popping the bubbly and clinking the champagne flutes.
Evil has triumphed.
For now at least.
But not in the end.
Because God will not be mocked.
And victory is His.
As many of us have long warned, all this “gay marriage” nonsense was never about “marriage equality.” It was, and remains, a spiritual battle camouflaged in the formal attire of judicial and public policy wrangling. It was always about forcing Christ’s faithful followers, under penalty of law, to abandon biblical truth and embrace sexual sin. The goal of “LGBT” activists and secular progressives has long been to pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion – Christianity in particular – and to silence all dissent.
Even so, let us not don our rose-colored glasses. Friday’s ruling comes straight from the pit of Hell. Even with its religious liberty “silver lining,” it has not ended the debate; it has only just launched it. It has opened the floodgates to anti-Christian persecution. Leftist lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals and organizations will now flow hot like the River Styx.
Since the court sided with “the enemies of God,” Farah writes, the U.S. could now face terrorist attacks, economic ruin or “more civil and racial strife.”
My prediction? It’s now open season on people of faith – Christians, Jews, anyone who holds marriage to be a sacred institution.
If the abolition of slavery caused a rupture in the American union, what will be the effect of abolishing marriage as it has been known for 6,000 years of human history?
We are living in perilous times.
As a Christian, I also believe we will be hearing from the author of marriage soon.
I don’t know what form that message will come, but it is certain to be heard sooner rather than later.
America’s elite leadership have taken the side of the enemies of God, and He will take notice.
It could come in the form of an economic crash. It could come in more civil and racial strife along the lines of what has been building in recent years. It could come in the form of an attack on our country from foreign power or terrorist group.
I suspect it will something big. I take no comfort in passing along this warning. It’s just the pattern that God uses to bring His people to repentance for their own good.
Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman wondered if the marriage ruling, along with the decision to uphold Obamacare’s subsidies for insurance plans, is a “harbinger to revolution.”
In the last few days we have seen the serious consequences of this dangerous state of affairs on the Supreme Court. Rather than serving as a check to the tyranny of Obama and his Democratic minions or the Republican cowards of the legislative branch, the Court, thanks in large part to the chief justice, has rubber-stamped this tyranny by rewriting Obamacare and taking away from the states their constitutional right under the 10th Amendment to decide whether to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
So the big question is this: Did the NSA and/or the CIA, working in concert with their Supreme Leader Obama, blackmail Roberts into submission?
Even the potential for this to happen, given the unconstitutional surveillance of the spy agencies on nearly all Americans, underscores why the nation is again on the verge of revolution. If evil despots have compromised even our Supreme Court, the ultimate protector and “decider” of our rights, then what choice is left to us? John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin certainly know, from their own experience with King George, and from their graves they see what now again lies ahead and what must be done to restore freedom to our shores.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
This week, we learn that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are in cahoots with radical Islam, Caitlyn Jenner’s gender transition is a hoax, Ferguson has unleashed a wave of criminals, and gays continue to destroy the nation.
Obama’s Muslim Plot
Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly explained in an interview with WorldNetDaily this week that President Obama is planning for the U.S. to take in Muslim refugees from war-torn nations such a Syria as part of his plan to wage “war on America,” knowing full well that Syrian refugees seek to “take over the world and establish their caliphate.”
“I don’t think he should let any Muslims in this country,” Schlafly said. “There is no reason why they should come in.” By permitting Muslim refugees to enter the U.S., Schlafly argued, “Obama is trying to absolutely change America by bringing in people who have no sympathy with what Americans believe.”
On her Eagle Forum blog, Schlafly also praised Ann Coulter’s new anti-immigrant screed “Adios America,” thanking Coulter for “alerting Americas to how Obama and the Democrats are destroying the land we love” by “diluting our population” with individuals “who commit all sorts of unspeakable crimes, in particular crimes against very young women and girls.”
Michael Savage joined in on the conspiracy theory, calling Obama a “con man shyster” who is attempting to destroy America by “injecting, like a virus, Muslims from Syria into all-white communities in America.” Obama, according to Savage, has also taken “infected children from Honduras and put them in every school district he could.”
Plenty of right-wing activists are upset about Caitlyn Jenner’s transition. But some have looked beyond the headlines to reveal the true conspiracy that’s afoot.
Alex Jones, host of “InfoWars”, hypothesized that Jenner’s announcement was actually just a plot to distract Americans from Obama’s mischievous, scheming ways. Jones declared that he does not “like being force-fed constantly this weird, one agenda. The obsession, it’s got to be from like five, six years, because I cover media, with the trannies and transvestites.”
“What’s behind the agenda?” Jones asked, revealing that the true agenda of the media is to not only distract us from Obama’s civil war but to “make the coolest thing to be” a “tranny or a transvestite” and glorify a “creepy old guy.”
Jones is not alone in his suspicions, as Cliff Kincaid of the conservative group Accuracy In Media wondered in Barbwire if Jenner’s transition was just “a hoax” to promote her upcoming TV show. Kincaid argued that the greatest threat is to children, criticizing Jenner’s supporters for sending an “extremely damaging” message. Kincaid made sure to warn us that “the nation may not survive, as it becomes a laughingstock before self-destructing or becoming easy pickings for a determined foreign adversary.”
While it may seem like Jenner is simply showing the world her authentic self, Kincaid urged us to question, “Where is the evidence that this is anything but a hoax?”
Hillary Clinton And Her Radical Muslim Cronies
The right loves to hate Hillary Clinton, and the latest conspiracy theories paint Clinton as a supporter and friend of “murderous Islamic thugs.” Rick Wiles, host of “Trunews,” spoke to Christopher Farrell of Judicial Watch Tuesday about his group’s claim that the U.S. compound in Benghazi was “arming Al Qaeda” and coordinating arms shipments to Islamic terrorists in Syria. While this connection may force some to then question why Islamic terrorists attacked the Benghazi compound in 2012, this question did not concern Wiles and Farrell.
Wiles compared the end of Gary Hart’s presidential campaign due to a photograph surfacing “of him with a pretty blonde sitting on his lap” to the apparent “murderous Islamic thugs sitting on the lap of Hillary Clinton.”
While a Republican-led investigation by the House Select Committee on Intelligence found Judicial Watch’s allegations about arm ships to Syria to be as credible as Hillary playing Santa with Islamic terrorists, Farrell and Wiles are not the only ones to remain unconvinced. David Horowitz, a far-right conservative activist, alleged in an interview with Newsmax TV on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, leaked information to the militants who killed four American diplomats in Benghazi. Clinton “got four people killed in Benghazi,” Horowitz argued. “She, you know, disclosed her private emails to Huma Abedin, a Muslim Brotherhood operative that showed where Ambassador Stephens was all the time, making him a perfect target.”
‘The Ferguson Effect”
Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal last Friday titled “The New Nationwide Crime Wave” and the effect has been a week of media outlets sounding the alarm. Apparently, the civil unrest that began after the killing of Michael Brown has flooded the country, inspiring widespread crime.
What this theory lacks in nuance it makes up for in cherry-picked statistics that create a misleading image of increased violence and death. Switching between comparing shootings, violent felonies, and gun-related homicides, Mac Donald argued that the U.S. is “in the grips of a hysteria against cops” and that “cops have gotten the message that they should back off policing,” causing the flood gates to open and crime to wash over the nation.
This tsunami of crime, claimed Mac Donald, is the fault of the “mainstream media, the university presidents talking about assaults on blacks and of course the president and former attorney general.”
Anti-Gay Conspiracy Of The Week
This week in anti-gay conspiracies, gay men are exporting sodomy “to the entire universe” and the prospect of gay marriage will destroy America and cause millions to flee and/or demand secession.
Mike Heath, former head of the Maine Family Policy Council and current blogger on BarbWire, warned that the “[gay] virus is spreading rapidly. It won’t be enough to pervert the whole world with this evil anti-family worldview. Since the developed governments of the world aspire to colonizing planets we have to prepare for the export of sodomy to other worlds—to the entire universe!” Referencing the Apostle Paul, Heath pointed out that “you can tell when a nation has become a walking corpse when it has endorsed perverted sex.”
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, in an interview with CNS News, had a similarly dire warning, claiming that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality would “literally cause the destruction of our country.” The court is “toying with something that’s like dynamite and will destroy our country,” he said.
If, however, by some stroke of luck America does not blow up following a ruling in favor of marriage equality, WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah promises that it would be met by secession and mass emigration. Farah wrote that “we need a Promised Land. We need and Exodus strategy.” He asked if there are “any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?” If governors cannot promise Farah this, he promised us there would be a “pilgrimage by millions of Americans” fleeing marriage equality.
CNS News posted an audio clip of part of the interview:
CNS News posted an audio clip of part of the interview: - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/roy-moore-gay-marriage-will-literally-cause-destruction-our-country#sthash.SG52o5UE.dpuf
WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah issued an emergency plea to governors today asking them to consider seceding from the union if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage.
“We need a Promised Land. We need an Exodus strategy,” Farah wrote. “Are there any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?”
If not, Farah says that foreign nations that prohibit same-sex marriage should prepare for “a pilgrimage by millions of Americans” fleeing marriage equality.
Will a U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring “same-sex marriage” a “right” warrant secession by some state willing and eager to reclaim America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation?
You know it’s inevitable, right?
The fix is in. Two members of the Supreme Court have personally officiated at same-sex “marriages.” I count three solid votes against it. The chances of reaching five are somewhere between slim and none.
I’ve heard some chatter about civil disobedience. That’s all well and good. But I don’t see much in the way of serious organization taking place.
What I do see is a lot of grass-roots concern. I know there are millions of Christians, Jews and others who would pull up stakes and move to another country that honored the institution of marriage as it was designed by God – a union between one man and one woman.
As Jesus said it: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.”
Is there one state in 50 that would not only defy the coming abomination, but secede in response? The rewards could be great. I would certainly consider relocating. How about you?
The founders of this country found a place of refuge in America and shaped it into the greatest self-governing nation in the history of world. Just think what one state could do if it simply stuck to the principles that made this country great? Americans wouldn’t have to cross an ocean to rediscover what brought most of our ancestors here. We could simply drive.
Are any states so inclined?
I haven’t heard this question raised by anyone else. So I’m raising it now. We don’t have much time before the nine high priests in black robes decide to follow Baal instead of the One True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
We need a Promised Land. We need an Exodus strategy.
If not a state, are there any nations in the world interested in a pilgrimage by millions of Americans?
And here’s the second question: Are there any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?
Mike Huckabee has already secured the coveted endorsement of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar.
Randall Murphee of the American Family Association defends his organization's regular use of boycotts.
Joseph Farah wonders if the time has come for Christians to "recognize they have effectively failed to serve as salt and light in their culture and begin withdrawing from American 'mainstream' society for the sake of their own children and obedience to God rather than man."
Glenn Beck interviewed Rep. Steve King on his radio program today and King promised Beck that he could come along the next time King travels to Egypt to meet President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.
Finally, Dave Daubenmire is not buying all of the claims made by Religious Right leaders that they will not obey any Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage: "So now, they say it is time to disobey. WE WILL NOT OBEY! I hear them bombasting in regard to their anticipated defeat in the Supreme Court’s homo-marriage decision. Really? They are going to go to jail? James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Matt Staver, Franklin Graham, Jerry Johnson, Rick Santorum, Keith Fornier, Rick Scarborough—they’re willing to go to jail? REALLY?"
Farah, who has suggestedinthepast 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.
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 stiflevoting 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?
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.”
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.”
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.
After years of promoting the birther myth, WorldNetDaily is now embracingtheconspiracy 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.
End Times preacher Jonathan Cahn believes that if the Supreme Court strikes down the remaining state bans on same-sex marriage, America will experience tremendous calamities.
Cahn, a messianic rabbi who has linked gay rights to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, fascism and the End Times, told WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah in an interview at the National Religious Broadcasters convention posted online today that the court could usher in a series of divine punishments just as it did with the 1973 ruling on abortion rights, Roe v. Wade.
“Within one month of Roe v. Wade, that Supreme Court decision with abortion, the financial realm collapsed, led to a global recession, the same year America lost its first war in modern history or ever in Vietnam,” he said.
He added that the upcoming marriage case is “a very cataclysmic, moral, spiritual thing. What’s that going to do in the rest of the realm? Well I believe it is all coming together.”
In classic Fox News and far-right trolling style, Farah said he didn’t actually believe Obama would refuse to leave office, but was just asking questions: why should we should take a departure for granted given what he calls Obama’s “contempt of the law” and “disrespect for American tradition” – and “the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office.”
Farah was seemingly not pleased that RWW poked fun at his column, responding over the weekend with an appeal to another unimpeachable source of information on the president’s plans, Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh, says Farah, responded to a Friday caller raising the same question by spinning out a hypothetical scenario in which Obama refuses to go. Here’s Limbaugh:
“So as a service to the nation, he is going to forget the 22nd Amendment and either not leave office or run for re-election himself as the Democrat nominee. Just imagine that scenario. I don’t care how unreal it sounds, how unbelievable it sounds. Imagine it.
What would anybody do? What would Mitch McConnell do? What would John Boehner do?
“There’s simply no organized opposition to Obama’s illegal, criminal actions and behavior. He’s getting away with all of it. There are no serious repercussions. No political price. No major media opposition. Few judicial rulings that worry him. Not one political, religious or social institution that is holding him accountable – least of all the Republican Party."
Farah was apparently bothered that Miranda’s RWW post did not include a pledge that People For the American Way would “use all of its influence and legal firepower” to stop Obama from chucking the Constitution in a White House power-grab. Of course we don’t take the possibility seriously, but since Farah seems to, let’s offer him a proposition: If President Obama refuses to allow a constitutional transfer of power to his successor, we will join you at the barricades. If the American republic miraculously survives, you will stop polluting the public discourse with toxic nonsense. Deal?
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah personally believes that President Obama will leave office when his second term is up in January 2017, but senses that “there is great concern out there across the fruited plain” that the president will try to stay in office permanently, so he evidently considers it his journalistic duty to explore why this conspiracy theory may be true.
“[W]hy do we assume Obama will step aside willingly from the presidency following an election in 2016?” Farah asks in a column today. “I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why.”
Farah then goes on to cite evidence of Obama’s possible power grab, including that the president that “respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power,” has said “he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office,” and, of course, “the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office.”
Question: Why are Americans so certain there will be a presidential election in 2016 and that Barack Obama will leave office in January 2017?
Answer: Because it’s the law and because it’s American tradition.
However, we currently have a man in the White House who respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power.
And then, of course, there’s the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office. In fact, if he’s telling the truth about his parentage and the “birth certificate” he produced after years of demands from the public is real, he could not possibly be a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.
So with all of this history – and much more, in fact – why do we assume Obama will step aside willingly from the presidency following an election in 2016?
I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why. And judging from the number of questions I’m getting along these lines from the public, I’d say there’s great concern out there across the fruited plain.
Maybe we assume he will respectfully leave office after two terms because he has publicly said he would. In 2013, Obama said he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office.
But that begs the question of whether Obama is truthful.
Again, do I think Obama will leave office in January 2017? Yes I do.
But, with a track record like this – and, actually much worse – should we simply take it for granted?
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is so angry about the so-called “War on Christmas” that he wonders “how much of the fun and delight of Christmas has been robbed from our kids.”
Farah doesn’t stop there, writing in his column today that the groups purportedly waging war on Christmas are similar to “the terrorists in the Middle East” who deceive others about their nefarious, expansive agendas.
As Jean Shepherd, the late screenwriter of “A Christmas Story,” would say, the entire annual calendar of kid-dom revolved around this holiday.
We’d start thinking about it in September. By Thanksgiving, there was a feeling of imminent inevitability. Hysteria began to set in by Dec. 1.
We didn’t just celebrate Christmas. Christmas Eve was nearly as big a deal. And we began a countdown in our household many days before that. Today, for instance, would be the eve of Christmas Eve. Yesterday was the eve of the eve of Christmas Eve, and so on.
With all the attacks on Christmas in recent years, I wonder how much of the fun and delight of Christmas has been robbed from our kids.
But, of course, the attacks are not really directed at Christmas, at all. Christmas is only a target of the secular jihadists of the American Civil Liberties Union and their co-conspirators at Americans United For Separation of Church and State; their ultimate goal is destroying what Christmas represents.
They remind me of the terrorists in the Middle East who say they want a state of their own, but what they really want is to destroy another state. Since they haven’t been able to achieve their goal in an all-out assault, they settle for getting there piece by piece.
The real target is not Christmas. It’s Christianity. That’s where the real battle lines are being drawn.
As everybody knows, America is turning into a chaotic terrorist haven filled with race riots that is also somehow a Nazi police state, or at least that is what we learned this week from some of our favorite right-wing activists and politicians.
WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah writes today that President Obama “appears to be doing everything in his power to spread the Ebola virus” as part of a nefarious plan to grow the size of government.
Farah claims that Obama’s “evil nature” comes from “the satanic death cult euphemistically called ‘progressivism,’” which he says is based on the Cloward-Piven strategy.
“It’s the kind of thinking that led to the gas chambers,” Farah writes. “It’s the kind of thinking that led to the gulags. It’s the kind of thinking that led to the guillotines.”
According to Farah, Obama has launched a “Cloward-Piven-Ebola Strategy” in which he hopes that more people will contract Ebola in order to justify government expansion.
Many are scratching their heads trying to figure out why Barack Obama appears to be doing everything in his power to spread the Ebola virus.
If it’s not error, bad judgment, misguided thinking, irrationality, ideological and multicultural blindness or insanity that explains what Obama and the cabal of pseudo-scientists, ideologues and population control activists are doing on the Ebola front, what does?
I fear it’s something much worse.
I fear it is their evil nature. I fear it can best be described by recalling the motivations behind the Cloward-Piven Strategy. I fear we may be experiencing the effects of the Cloward-Piven-Ebola Strategy.
To refresh your memories, the Cloward-Piven Strategy was a political tactic devised in 1966 by progressive academics Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.” In other words, it was an attack on the fringes of the free-enterprise system to destroy the system, replacing it with socialist utopia.
What does it have to do with Obama and the progressives steering America’s political ship today? They are direct descendants of Cloward and Piven. The Cloward-Piven Strategy is mainstream leftist ideology. It’s the Rosetta stone for understanding what progressives do and why they do it. It seems to make no sense on the surface to non-leftist ideologues. It seems like irrationality, stupidity or even insanity. But it’s not. It’s pure evil from the pit of hell.
It’s the kind of thinking that led to the gas chambers. It’s the kind of thinking that led to the gulags. It’s the kind of thinking that led to the guillotines.
Let’s recall that Obama first set out to kill the flawed but greatest health-care system the world had ever known. He lied repeatedly about what he was doing. He misrepresented his intentions and his goals. Once he got what he wanted and people could see it didn’t work the way they thought it would work, he told them they just didn’t understand. He told them it was their imaginations that they were losing their health-care insurance, paying more for medical services and being denied treatment.
You see, if you follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy, your goal was never to provide better and more affordable health care. It was to destroy the system and replace it with complete government control.
You know what the Obama team says about crises: “Never let a good one go to waste.” Is it unimaginable to consider the possibility that Obama’s Ebola strategy is actually the “Cloward-Piven-Ebola Strategy”?
The moral of the story is simple: Never underestimate the evil motives of the satanic death cult euphemistically called “progressivism.” It’s not about progress. It’s about regression: It’s about making the state (read: “them”) the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. We all know where that leads, though it’s awfully hard to believe it’s happening again – here!
In a WorldNetDaily column today, the site’s editor Joseph Farah adds his voice to the popular right-wing field of using the Bible to justify harsh anti-immigrant laws.
Criticizing Christian immigrants’ rights supporters for “seizing on one or two out-of-context verses in the Bible” to support their positions (something that Farah would never do!), he contends that the Bible actually supports deporting all undocumented immigrants because God wanted to prevent “global government” and that’s what immigration reform supporters want.
It’s always good when people consider the moral implications of public policy. So the Bible is a good place to start exploring the right and wrong of immigration laws. But seizing on one or two out-of-context verses in the Bible does not make for the kind of comprehensive moral case you would expect of those urging “comprehensive immigration reform.”
The Bible actually has a lot of say about national borders, foreigners, citizenship and the law.
For starters, I challenge anyone to check an exhaustive online or offline concordance for the word “border” or “borders” to get an appreciation of how many times God’s Word references these terms. While not all of them are relevant to our discussion, I count 169 references, most of them making the point that God really cares about them. Is that surprising? He cares about boundaries between nations. In fact, it is God Himself who invented nation-states back in Genesis 11.
Why did He do it?
It seems He scattered the world’s population and created the diverse languages in an effort to subvert man’s efforts to unite in a global kingdom under a false universal religion. Keep in mind, this took place before God created the nation of Israel.
Interestingly, one of the prime motivations of those behind the promotion of borderless societies is this very same notion of regional government and global government and the breakdown of nationalism.
What was wrong at the time of the Tower of Babel remains wrong today. That should be clear to anyone and everyone whose standard of morality is the Bible.
If we want to be compassionate to the strangers and aliens of our world today, those law-abiding foreigners who desperately want to come to America and are patiently awaiting their turn, we need to be certain they don’t get squeezed out unfairly by those who break the law and push ahead of them in line. And we should expect them to fully assimilate into our national culture.
We shouldn’t be mean to those lawbreakers, either. We shouldn’t mistreat them. We should even forgive them. But they have to leave.
They haven’t been invited. They are not our guests. They are not just strangers; they are trespassers. They are victimizing others through their presence – namely American citizens and foreigners who are trying to immigrate to the U.S. legally. They need to go back home and get in line like others waiting to enter our country lawfully. They need to follow the rules.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah reminds us today that October 23 is the day that 17th-century scholar James Ussher deduced was the day on which God created the Earth in the year 4004 BC, thus making today the Earth’s 6,028th birthday.
Farah marks the occasion by taking on some of the scientific quibbles with Young Earth Creationism, including the science showing that the earth is billions of years old and that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago.
While science “can never prove the age of the Earth,” Farah argues, ”God can, however, prove the age of the Earth because He was there. And someday, when He returns to judge His creation, He might just do that.”
He then argues that ancient depictions of mythical beasts are proof that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. “Is it crazier for me to believe the world is around 6,000 years old than it is to accept as scientific fact that it is actually millions or billions of years old?” he asks.
One thing we know for sure: Science can never prove the age of the Earth. Because science requires a methodology of observation and empirical testing that could never be done on an event that occurred thousands of years ago, millions of years ago or billions of years ago. God can, however, prove the age of the Earth because He was there. And someday, when He returns to judge His creation, He might just do that.
Until then, we have the detailed historical record He left us with in written form – the Bible.
I know what some of you are thinking: “Farah, what about the dinosaurs that were tens of millions of years old? How do you explain that?” Quite simply, I don’t believe it. Throughout man’s history, in every culture, we have stories, pictures and sculptures depicting dragons and leviathans and sea serpents. Are we to believe these were all concocted in man’s imagination? Even the Bible references such observations. If behemoths like the one described in chapter 40 of the Book of Job somehow threatened the Bible account of history, I don’t think it would be there.
But here’s the bottom line: Is it crazier for me to believe the world is around 6,000 years old than it is to accept as scientific fact that it is actually millions or billions of years old?
Tomorrow, people in much of the world will have the opportunity to witness a rare “total lunar eclipse,” which could turn the moon a deep shade of red. But, be warned: such a “blood moon” isn’t just an astronomical curiosity. According to a story that WorldNetDaily has been pushing for months, it’s also potentially a message from God warning of the impending Last Days.
In an interview with WorldNetDaily published yesterday, Pastor Mark Biltz — who literally wrote the book on the “heavenly signs” disguised in blood moons — reports that tomorrow’s eclipse could potentially signal “that God is closing this chapter of human history” and warning us of the coming “Great Tribulation mentioned in the Bible.”
“All these signs, coming together at one time, are potentially the culminating signals that God is closing this chapter of human history,” Biltz said. “This could be the final curtain call before the Great Tribulation mentioned in the Bible. God has always wanted to warn His people, and the rest of the world, before He intervenes. What better way to communicate to us than through the universal language of heavenly signs that speak to every tribe, tongue, and nation?”
He said, “In the Old Testament, the prophet Joel states: ‘The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come’ (Joel 2:31). In the New Testament, Jesus is quoted as saying: ‘Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light … And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory’ (Matthew 24:29-30).”
In an email promoting the article, WND backs up Biltz’s point by noting that since the last blood moon occurred, several terrible things have happened in the world, including the spread of the Ebola virus and the rise of ISIS.
If Wednesday morning's total lunar eclipse – the second so-called blood moon – is indeed a "culminating signal that God is closing this chapter of human history," then consider history's path since the last blood moon occurred in April:
The death toll from the newly identified Ebola virus had not yet reached 150, all in Liberia and Guinea ... far from the United States.
Early reports of crucifixions and other atrocities in Syria did not yet have the labels ISIL, ISIS or IS in most people's minds.
Something big is happening in the world and in time ...
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah respond in a column today to the news that in intruder was able to climb over the White House fence last week. Farah, of course, sees the incident as proof that Obama has “compromised and degraded” the Secret Service, that he has “no use for borders or immigration laws” and that “no one in America is safe as long as Obama is on watch.”
Characteristically, Farah fails to mention that severalintruderswere able to scale the White House fence during George W. Bush’s presidency as well.
But, let me ask you a question in light of this incident: Do you really expect Barack Obama to protect you from ISIS terrorists and other threats to the safety and security of the nation?
The White House is surrounded by security details. There are cameras everywhere. Agents are locked and loaded, determined to prevent any existential threats to the first family and others. The nation is on heightened awareness of potential terrorist threats.
Yet, Omar J. Gonzales, 42, of Copperas Cove, Texas, made it all the way to the White House entrance unscathed.
What does this tell you?
It should tell you no one in America is safe as long as Obama is on watch.
My theory is this: Obama is such a bad commander in chief that even a great agency like the Secret Service is compromised and degraded under his leadership.
And, if I’m right, what does that suggest about the military forces of the U.S. today – after they have literally been cut to shreds by Obama?
Or maybe there is another explanation.
Maybe Obama’s laissez-faire attitude toward border intruders is manifesting itself in another form. Obama has no use for borders or immigration laws. He’s made that perfectly clear. All this time I thought he was a hypocrite for not caring about protecting the property rights of average Americans, not caring about the rule of law, not caring about common sense and the national security of the nation when it came to his border policy.
But maybe I was wrong.
Maybe he doesn’t even care about the safety and security of his own family and those who work at the White House. And maybe that’s reflected in this incident.
Recall, if you will, what Obama’s prime foreign policy objective was just over a year ago: He was determined to bomb the regime of Syria’s Hafez Assad. That, to Obama, was the most important and critical foreign policy objective. Many people, myself included, were astonished. Assad’s regime, while despicable in many ways, was hardly a threat to U.S. interests. In addition, the people Assad was battling in his own country were ruthless killers, thugs and terrorists. In fact, it was ISIS. Assad was also providing protection of Syrian Christians and other religious minorities – and still is.
Obama didn’t get his way. He couldn’t get Congress excited about his bombing idea – thank goodness.
He did, however, provide arms and munitions and your tax dollars to those rebels. Most or all of it wound up in the hands of ISIS. Thus, Obama, more than anyone else, actually fed and nursed and gave aid and comfort to ISIS. He incubated the monster it has become.
Now Obama is using the crisis he created to get what he wanted more than a year ago – another shot at undermining Assad’s government. He’s going back to the well with what he describes as a strategy to defeat ISIS by supporting Assad’s Sunni opposition.
I can only assume the reason is that Obama is not really at war with ISIS.
I know that’s a remarkable conclusion. It’s not one I state lightly. But Obama is doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia, as many of his predecessors did. And the bidding of Saudi Arabia is Sunni jihad. It’s what Obama confusingly labeled “the Arab spring.” It is about deposing authoritarian rulers who are not Sunni jihadists, who are not disciples of the Muslim Brotherhood and who often actually serve as a moderating and life-sustaining force in the volatile Middle East.
Obama has not chosen to fight against an outrageously evil and vicious terrorist army in Syria and Iraq. Instead, he is demonstrating once again that he has chosen sides in a religious war in the Middle East – and the side he has chosen is not the sunny side, but the Sunni side. He has chosen the Muslim Brotherhood over innocent non-Sunni victims caught in the crossfire of jihad. He has chosen the dark side, the aggressor side, the sectarian side.
No American in his or her right mind should get behind this war.