From Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson's August 4 column on WorldNetDaily, headlined "Obama hates the white man":
Barack Obama hates white people -- especially white men. Sorry folks, but the truth will set you free!
Why else would Obama falsely accuse Sgt. James Crowley and other Cambridge Police officers of "racial profiling" and claim they "acted stupidly" -- creating a national racial controversy?
For months, I have said that Barack Obama was elected as a result of white fear (guilt) and black racism. Whites voted for him because of guilt and the fear of being called "racist." And the 96 percent of blacks who voted for the "Messiah" did so because of his race and his "spread the wealth" notions.
Barack Obama is Jeremiah Wright Jr. He is the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus! He embodies the aspirations of every left-wing black group that wants to tear down this country and take power away from the "oppressive" white man. He's not an obvious race hustler like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson; but Obama is a smooth pathological liar -- with a wicked heart.
Both Obama and his friend Henry Louis Gates are racist. Keep in mind also that Gates' attorney, Charles Ogletree, was Barack Obama's law professor at Harvard. We're dealing with liberal-elite, cunning black intellectuals.
Sgt. James Crowley said after the "beer summit" that there were no apologies, but that he will meet with and listen to more about Gates' views. Listen to what? How to hamstring cops from doing their jobs? Are you kidding me?
I realize that Crowley was under a great deal of pressure to get along, but he should have had the courage to demand an apology and tell the president and Gates: 1) They were wrong, and 2) Their phony photo op and "beer summit" at the White House won't cleanse their racist hearts.
Early this morning, we (along with others) noted that the purported Obama birth certificate posted by WorldNetDaily says that it was issued by the "Republic of Kenya" on February 17, 1964, but that Kenya did not become a republic until December 12, 1964.
Well, here's WND's response:
Media Matters wrote, "Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn't a republic until Dec. 1964."
But Kenya's official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government documents during that time period.
At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.
"Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document," the website stated.
The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History.
Even the People Daily news agency cited, on Dec. 12, 2005, the "42nd independence anniversary" in Nairobi. "The country gained independence from Britain on Dec. 12, 1963," the report said.
An online copy of the Kenya Constitution, "adopted in 1963, amended in 1999," states: "CHAPTER I - THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, Article 1, Kenya is a sovereign Republic. Article 1A, The Republic of Kenya shall be a multiparty democratic state..."
It was in November 1964 when the region voluntarily became a one-party state, according to an online source.
There are a couple points to be made here.
First, WND's focus on the date of Kenyan independence is a straw man. No one is disputing that Kenya gained independence in 1963. But that isn't the same as when it became a republic. Indeed, the December 12, 1964, Washington Post article we posted reported: "Kenya became the newest republic within the British Commonwealth at midnight. ... Kenya became independent in December, 1963 and has now shed its dominion status, while remaining in the Commonwealth" [emphasis added].
Second, on the issue of Kenya's constitution "adopted in 1963," here's how the CIA's World Factbook describes Kenya's constitutional history:
12 December 1963; amended as a republic 1964; reissued with amendments 1979, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2001; note - a new draft constitution was defeated by popular referendum in 2005
That's consistent with news reporting from the time. An October 27, 1963, Washington Post article describing Kenya's initial constitution reported that "Britain ... has left a loophole insuring that the whole constitution will be rewritten in a year or so. The country is being given dominion (monarchial) status but its leaders have said that they intend to make it a republic."
A year later, the Post reported in a November 11, 1964, article: "Within a few hours after" Kenyan opposition leader Ronald Ngala's November 10, 1964, announcement that he was dissolving his party, "the Senate unanimously passed the second and third readings of a bill to give the country a republican constitution to take effect Dec. 12." According to the Post, that vote "eliminated any need for a referendum to decide whether the country should become a republic." The Post added that "Ngala's party has been increasingly weakened recently by a rash of desertions during consideration of the government's bill to make Kenya a republic Dec. 12."
WorldNetDaily and the right-wing fringe are very excited about their scoop that Orly Taitz has "released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth" for President Obama. According to WND, "Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because 'he's afraid for his life.' " So in order to believe Taitz and WND, one would have to assume that this document was requested 45 years ago, preserved that entire time, withheld through the entire election and transition period, and yet somehow ended up in the hands of someone sympathetic to Orly Taitz.
DailyKos' David Waldman has identified what appears to be an even more glaring problem with WND's latest smoking gun. The document posted by WND purports to have been produced by the "Republic of Kenya" on February 17, 1964. But Kenya didn't even become a republic until December 12, 1964. An article from that day's Washington Post, for example, reported that "Kenya became the newest republic within the British Commonwealth at midnight."
On Hardball, G. Gordon Liddy falsely claimed that there is "a deposition ... from the stepgrandmother, who says, 'I was present and saw [President Obama] born in Mombasa.' " In fact, while WorldNetDaily claims to have affidavits from two people purportedly involved in an interview with Obama's stepgrandmother, those individuals' accounts have been discredited, and even WND does not claim to have a sworn statement from the stepgrandmother herself.
In light of Lou Dobbs' recent promotion of birther theories, Media Matters presents a look at some of the leading figures within the birther community and the views they've espoused.
From St. John's July 8 WorldNetDaily column, headlined "Desperate conservatives fooled by Palin?":
As America prepared to celebrate Independence Day, Sarah Palin declared her own independence - as a woman. By announcing she was resigning as governor of Alaska 18 months before the end of her term, Palin shocked adversaries and friends alike. While the media fireworks temporarily pushed Michael Jackson coverage off the front page, Palin naysayers like NBC's Andrea Mitchell opined that perhaps she was missing family life after a tiring stint of politics.
Fat chance of that.
Palin is an avowed feminist. As such, her husband and children have to fall in line behind her career goals. If everyday actions speak louder than words, then she holds more affinity with her pro-abortion feminist sisters than with her conservative sisters nursing babies at home.
It came close to sounding as though Palin's family was a priority when she said, "...every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it's right for all, including your family." She also stated, "...we know we can effect positive change outside government" and "actually make a difference."
Was Palin talking about "the hand that rocks the cradle" kind of difference that celebrates motherhood and the value of children, not only inside the womb, but outside as well?
Palin's history over the past 17 years tells another story. Three years after the birth of the first of her five children, she entered the rough-and-tumble world of Alaska (and eventually national) politics and has never looked back.
Has America become so emasculated that our only hope of getting another Ronald Reagan into the Oval Office is to idolize Palin as a political Madonna? Hardly.
Do we have no men who can match her intelligence, charisma and leadership skills? To the contrary, we have better.
Have conservatives become so desperate for a passionate leader that they forsake their most basic values of home and hearth? Yes, but it's more than that.
Sarah Palin represents the empirical self of millions of women working outside the home. They live vicariously through her supposed success. Seeing such a woman extolled gives credibility to their frantic lifestyle juggling job, children, husband, church, and housework.
It has been said that part of Palin's appeal is that her family is like so many other families. She is today's American woman, who works outside the home and does it all. Whose daughters get pregnant out-of-wedlock. Whose husbands wear the aprons.
Have we gone insane? Is this something to celebrate?
It has been said that the sin of homosexuality precedes judgment on a nation. Yet, the first instance in Scripture where we see a curse enacted was in the Garden of Eden when a woman took the lead and a man followed. Does this not describe America today? "As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them," says Isaiah 3:12.
As conservatives continue chanting Sarah Palin for president, are they disenfranchising the men capable of stepping up to the plate in 2012? There are many strong conservative men better qualified to lead the greatest nation in the world.
I pray these men rise to the fore and that Sarah Palin begins to turn her heart toward her home.
I pray America wakes up to realize once again that the hand that rocks the cradle truly rules the world. That is a mother's highest calling. That is Sarah Palin's calling.
In her June 16 WorldNetDaily.com column, radio host Janet Porter writes that the Obama "dictatorship must be stopped. And it must be stopped now. If we don't, we'll lose more than our strongest ally in the Middle East and the free market - we'll lose our lives." From her column:
In the same way he doesn't want to interfere with the so-called "elections" in Iran, he doesn't want to interfere with Tehran's efforts to obtain nuclear power. He'll give them until the end of the year to gain all the nuclear power they need to obtain their fundamental goal of wiping Israel off the map. But, rest assured, after that, he'll engage in some serious dialogue.
No, Obama doesn't want to dictate to other nations what they should do. Unless that nation is Israel. When it comes to Israel, he wants full dictatorship. I wouldn't be surprised if he were to appoint another unaccountable czar to rule over them.
In the same "Apology tour" highlighting America's arrogance for "dictating" policy, Obama also used his political power to try and force the European Union to admit Muslim Turkey into their midst. Thankfully, France and Germany wisely opposed his dictates.
And while we're on the subject of the arrogance of such "dictates," Obama, who said he wasn't interested in taking over the Auto industry, has done just - closing dealerships based not on their success, but on their politics. Those who opposed his candidacy are out of business, and those who gave him the most money remain open, even if their dealerships weren't successful. Auto czars and pay czars that answer to no one but the dictator in chief are making policy as we speak. They have taken over the banks, and now they want to run your health care.
This dictatorship must be stopped. And it must be stopped now. If we don't, we'll lose more than our strongest ally in the Middle East and the free market - we'll lose our lives.
Hat-tip: Right Wing Watch
In response to Shepard Smith's remarks that the Holocaust museum shooting validated a recent DHS report on right-wing extremism, several conservative media figures have attacked Smith or called for his firing from Fox News.
Numerous media figures followed a Politico article in noting that President Obama did not use the words "terror," "terrorism," "terrorist," or "war on terror" during his speech at Cairo University, suggesting the omission was notable, but did not discuss possible reasons why Obama chose other words.
Loading the player reg...
From WorldNetDaily's unscientific internet poll, headlined, "A VIEW TO A KILL: What's your reaction to the murder of abortionist George Tiller?"
Accessed at 7:19am E.T.
From Farah's May 30 column, headlined "A racist for the Supreme Court":
Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza. What is La Raza?
It bills itself as a "civil rights" organization. It would be more appropriate to say it disguises itself as such. It camouflages itself as such. It hides its real purpose and true intents as such - with the willing and skillful assistance of many of my media colleagues.
In reality, La Raza is a racist hate group - a band of "Hispanic supremacists," if you will, though it is seldom characterized that way.
It is no more a civil rights group than the Ku Klux Klan is a group promoting the civil rights of white people. It is no more a civil rights group than the neo-Nazi scum who marched a generation ago at Skokie, Ill., with the legal protection of the American Civil Liberties Union, another misnamed organization. It is no more a civil rights group than the Aryan skinheads who victimize Jews and others they detest in trying to lift themselves up from the gutter.
La Raza is part of the movement in this country to destroy it from within by dividing and "reconquering."
Its members and leadership are linked directly to those who believe the Southwestern U.S. was unjustly seized from Mexico in the 19th century. It should, they believe, by any means necessary, be reconstituted either as part of that thoroughly corrupt, socialist regime fled by tens of millions of refugees or as an independent, autonomous, Spanish-speaking socialist state - like the mythical land of Aztlan.
The only real differences between La Raza and the neo-Nazis and the KKK are its wealth, power and level of sophistication.
From a May 29 WorldNetDaily article:
WND also used Fox Nation's post to fundraise for it's "Where's the birth certificate?" billboard campaign and promote its petition for the "PUBLIC RELEASE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE."
As Media Matters for America documented:
A May 28 headline on The Fox Nation -- Fox News' purportedly bias-free website -- asked: "Should Obama Release Birth Certificate? Or Is This Old News?" But contrary to The Fox Nation's question, the Obama campaign released a copy of President Obama's birth certificate, posting it on the campaign's Fight the Smears website. It also reportedly provided the original document to FactCheck.org, whose staff concluded in an August 21, 2008, post that it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." The Hawaii Department of Health also repeatedly confirmed that the birth certificate on record with the state is valid and proves that he was born in the state of Hawaii.
Numerous media figures have compared President Obama and his administration to the mafia, frequently referencing films and television shows such as The Godfather, Goodfellas, and The Sopranos.
Jerome Corsi mischaracterized an analysis by Nate Silver to claim that President Obama "will need to sustain a 65-percent approval rating to avoid losing the House" in 2010. In fact, Silver predicted that Obama needs that level of support "to avoid losing any ground in the House."