“Just Asking” — Will President Obama “Leave” the Presidency in 2017?

It’s been awhile since I wrote about this, but World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah’s argument with RightWingWatch prompted me to revisit it, even though we’re still two years away from the Obamapocalypse.

First, there was on Thursday a column published by Joseph Farah, “Will Obama Leave Office in 2017?” It got 715 comments (so far). This was followed up on Friday by a published e-mail from a Frances Haase: “How Obama Could Stay in Office in 2017.” Just speculating about civil unrest and martial law and suspension of elections. It got one comment.

Then, in response later that day, Miranda Blue published on RightWingWatch: “Joseph Farah Is ‘Just Asking’: Will Obama Actually Leave Office in January 2017?” RWW noted this:

“[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.”

It’s a pathetic phrase that is often used by people who want to say something they know will be controversial and, for some reason or another (since Farah has said far more controversial things and been forthright about it), they don’t want it coming back on them, or they want an excuse to say, “Hey! I didn’t actually say that, I was just asking the question!”

Richard Hoagland does this a lot when claiming that every asteroid and comet is a space ship.

Despite RWW and WND going head-to-head for years, apparently it rubbed Joseph Farah the wrong way. He actually responded in a column on Sunday: “Who Would Oppose Obama 3rd Term?” Who indeed? He starts out his column as such:

In this space on Thursday, I raised a question that Americans had only been whispering about among trusted friends: Will Barack Obama leave office in 2017?”

People for the American Way’s “Right Wing Watch” didn’t like it.

I trust that means the group will use all of its influence and legal firepower to oppose any attempt by Obama to subvert the law – though there was no hint of that in its response.

Rush Limbaugh responded to the question Friday when a caller raised the possibility Obama might ignore the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution as he has ignored so many other laws since taking office.

[…] Limbaugh speculated that Obama might actually consider the possibility of a third term given the Democratic Party’s weak field of potential presidential candidates for 2016. He imagined Obama going on television and making a case to the American people that he is in the best position to stop a Republican from capturing the White House – “not after eight courageous years of transforming America!”

So, “Not only am I ‘just askin’,’ but so is Papa Rush!”

RightWingWatch responded today with a post by Peter Montgomery: “Birther Joseph Farah Wants PFAW Help To Block Third Obama Term. Let’s Make A Deal.” Here’s his proposal:

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?

I think that’s fair.

Phil Plait Destroys Article WND Treats as Gospel on Global Warming

Sticking your head in the ground is a popular scheme of all science deniers, and for some reason that I’m still unsure of, the basic science of climate change, and a manifestation of that – global warming – has become incredibly politicized over the last few decades. The science really is settled as to the basics of what’s going on. Politicians and deniers will have you believe otherwise.

They often turn to ridiculous conspiracy theories and rants. One of the latest is by Christopher Booker from The Telegraph and parroted by Greg Corombos on World Net Daily: “Climate Guru: Brace for Massive Cover-Up.”

I’m not even going to get into his argument. It’s the same old tired crap, but it pleases people who desperately need confirmation that their conspiracies could possibly be real.

I experienced something similar when I did a massive, thoroughly researched podcast episode into claims of scientific foreknowledge by Billy Meier about Jupiter and Saturn. I showed without a doubt that the information Meier wrote about was known or already shown as very likely to be the case (as in, hypothesized and put out as specific predictions) by scientists before Meier wrote about it. Meier fans picked through it and harped on minutia (like the exact definition of “craters” or “rings”) rather than the overall point in order to disclaim my entire episode and analysis. In other words, complaining that one tree that looks a little sicker than all the healthy trees, and saying therefore the entire forest is dead.

Anyway, Phil Plait has utterly lambasted this latest attempt in his post, “No, Adjusting Temperature Measurements Is Not a Scandal.” In it, he explains what is meant by scientists when we “process” data. And he shows that independent groups have gone through completely different analyses of the data and gotten the same results.

It’s pretty thorough. I recommend just reading that instead of the WND article. Unless you want a headache.

WND’s Aaron Klein Publishes Fake News as Real, Part 8: President Obama Trying to Undermine Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

I’m at the point that when I see Aaron Klein’s name in the byline of a WND story, I assume it’s fake. It may not be a completely accurate heuristic, but it’s developed over the lifetime of this blog. Let’s start this time with the debunking itself, and then get into Klein’s claims: “Right-Wing Smear Baselessly Links Obama Admin to Anti-Netanyahu Campaign” by Hannah Groch-Begley on Media Matters.

Hannah comes out swinging, debunking the claim – or at least mollifying it – in the first paragraph, by pointing out “American political consultants from both parties have been independently working in Israeli campaigns for decades — including former Obama aides who have worked for Netanyahu.” I actually recommend reading Hannah’s article in full because it points out the path of the “Chinese Whispers” that have been blown out of any proportion or context due to a desire to undermine President Obama for any reason – real or not. (And to be fair, I don’t think everything President Obama does is good or fair or reasonable, I’d just rather dislike his actions if they’re real, rather than dislike his actions that are shown to be fake.)

Here’s the basic idea, or claimed evidence: “[… A] former Obama campaign staffer went to Israel “to oust Netanyahu,” suggesting the former staffer would not do this work “if he thought Obama opposed it” and implying the administration was “actively working to defeat Netanyahu.””

Here’s the reality: “Two policy groups in Israel, OneVoice and Victory 15, are currently working together to promote platforms that reportedly “are not friendly” to Netanyahu ahead of the upcoming election. The groups have also partnered with American consulting group 270 Strategies, which is headed by Jeremy Bird, a former Obama campaign staffer. OneVoice began working with 270 Strategies in 2013, long before the Israeli elections were announced.”

But, as she stated at the beginning: “There is a long history of U.S. political consultants from both parties working for Israeli political campaigns.” She then lists ones from US presidential campaigns that have worked both for and against various parties in Israel. But, apparently, this one is somehow different. The rumor that it’s different is possibly in response to House Speaker John Boehner inviting Netanyahu to address Congress — a major faux pas in Washington because foreign dignitaries are supposed to be handled by the State Department, part of the Executive Branch. This was seen as a major snub to Obama both by the House for offering it and Netanyahu for accepting. And so, “Conservatives claim that 270 Strategies’ work with OneVoice proves Obama is either retaliating against Netanyahu or engaging in a similar effort to meddle in foreign politics; but again, 270’s work on the ground in Israel began long before this most recent disagreement, and it is typical for American political consultants to engage in Israeli politics.”

This was then hyped by the Drudge Report, by Sen. Ted Cruz on Brietbart, and even Megan Kelly on Fox “news” who suggested “that the administration sent an Obama “field general” to help Israel “elect Netanyahu’s opponent.””

This took another twist because of money: “Many of the media outlets took the smear further, by also claiming that tax-payer dollars were funding the campaign. OneVoice briefly received a one-time grant for about $200,000 from the State Department, which ended in November 2014. As State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki noted in a briefing, the grant “ended before there was a declaration of an Israeli election.””

So, because some organization got a grant at one time, that means everything they do in the future is linked to that funding source? Uh huh …

That’s the extent of that. So, now we have WND:

• “‘Obama Army’ Deploys to Tel Aviv to Topple Netanyahu” –Aaron Klein (January 27, 2015), 1447 comments
• “Inside HQ of ‘Obama Army’ Opposing Netanyahu” –Aaron Klein (January 28, 2015), 770 comments
• “Cruz Grills Kerry on Anti-Netanyahu Spending” –Bob Unruh (January 31, 2015), 340 comments
• “Netanyahu Fires Back at ‘Obama Army’ Plotting His Defeat*” –Aaron Klein (February 01, 2015), 1974 comments
• “Anti-Netanyahu Election Group Admits to American Funding” –Aaron Klein (February 01, 2015), 102 comments
• “Meet Obama Organizer Working to Boot Bibi” –Aaron Klein (February 03, 2015), 555 comments
• “Another U.S.-Backed Scheme to Defeat Netanyahu” –Aaron Klein (February 05, 2015), 97 comments

*Reposted under the headline, “FOR TRAINING ONLY – Netanyahu fires back at U.S. election meddling” on February 6, but the link on February 6 returns a 404 Error (file not found).

Really, you can read down those headlines and check off each conspiracy that I explained above. But, with very sensationalistic headlines. For example, with the “Cruz Grills Kerry” one, it’s not a grilling. It’s a letter that Sen. Cruz sent to Sec. of State Kerry asking to make sure that no US taxpayer funds are being used. That’s it. Oh, except that in the WND story, there are many quotes from anonymous internet commenters who are opposed to what they are being mislead to think is going on.

The only one not in there is the one about Netanyahu “firing back” at an “Obama Army.” To quote from WND: “During a press conference Sunday, the Likud Party officially accused V15 and other related nonprofits of being supported “through millions of dollars funneled from Europe, the U.S. and the New Israel Fund and international factors interested in bringing down Prime Minister Netanyahu” who think “that all means are appropriate.” The Likud further called for Israel’s Central Elections Committee to outlaw V15′s activities to “ensure the integrity of the election.””

It may be a tu quoque fallacy on my part, but I would like to point out that there is plenty of foreign money in US politics, too. Something that is generally advocated for by conservative groups by trying to remove caps on spending and general accountability, and/or lessening funding for groups meant to watch for potential campaign spending violations.

In the end, what makes more sense? Scenario 1 is a vast, nefarious plot of one world leader plotting against the leader of an ally state. Which takes pace in a scenario where the former world leader’s every move is being watched by an incredibly hostile group of lawmakers. Or, Scenario 2 which is where a political campaign team that has a proven track record is either hired by or volunteers to help the campaign of someone else. Just happens to be that the new campaign is in a different country.

One of the reasons that I consider myself part of the modern scientific skepticism movement is because of crap like this. You need to question things. You need to look into sources and look for the story behind what you’re being told. You need to look at the evidence and get beyond the hype. Otherwise, you’re just a drone. And WND commenters are mainly drones. They just get riled up because they’re supposed to by stories like this. As “Envoy Master” wrote, “A sitting US president actively trying to cause a regime change in an ALLIED country is arguably treasonous as such an act is likely to benefit our enemies.” Yup, WND has done its job.

Students Protest in Manner School Board Was Trying to Prevent Them from Learning About

How’s that for a convoluted subject line? This is one from my archives from late September / early October of 2014, and it took place only a few 10s of miles from me. There were no less than three World Net Daily posts about it:

• “High Schoolers Protest ‘Patriotic’ Curriculum” –Sept. 24, News Snippet
• “School Board Retreats on ‘Patriotic’ Curriculum” –Oct 03, News Snippet
• “Wake Up! Schools Are Denigrating Our Heritage” –Oct 03, Tom Tancredo

I think that, most objectively, one can state the situation as this: A school board decided to modify the AP US History curriculum (note: AP curriculums are strictly set by the College Board (for-profit company) and if you do not follow them, you can lose AP accreditation and the students will not get college credit). The modification was as such:

Tensions have run high in Jefferson County schools since three conservative candidates were elected to the school board. These new board members have suggested an extensive rewrite of the way history is taught to the area’s students to a model they believe is more patriotic.

The right-leaning board-members said they believe history teachers should teach nationalism, respect for authority and reverence for free markets. They should avoid teaching any historical events or acts that promote “civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”

As a consequence, teachers protested by calling in sick en masse, and then students held their own protest with over 1000 in three different schools simply walking out. In protest. The very thing that the school board was trying to prevent them from learning (civil disorder). I found that particular irony quite delicious. It’s also midnight and I’ve been up for 15 hours and got little sleep the previous night.

From what I can tell, the conservative members of the board succeeded in their proposal, but they also formed some sort of review board with student/parent/teacher involvement for some curriculum matters. Meanwhile, people are working to recall those board members and replace them.

With that in mind, can you guess how the WND commenters reacted? Top-rated on that first post is by “Pi10107” whom I’ve quoted a lot on this blog: “I don’t believe that these kids came up with this protest on their own. Of course, they are not patriotic and have been brainwashed, but behind the scenes were adult commies pushing this. I totally agree with Annolyze that these kids didn’t even know what they were protesting.”

Or “ratamacue76” wrote: “I suspect that this was started by some leftist teacher who is doing their part to make sure that the current “hate America” curriculum stays in place. The kids being saturated by the Leftist view of the nation know none the better and most probably don’t even know what they are protesting in the first place. This is a dress rehearsal for useful idiots who are still in training.”

Let It Go / Let It Go / Fake Stories of Persecution!

This one doesn’t quite make it into my “Fake News that WND Posts” series because the story itself is real. It’s the spin that’s not. In this case, Joe Kovacs wrote on December 2, 2014, “Disney Goes Goofy Over Mention of ‘God.'”

To make a long, blown way out of proportion story short, Disney lets people given input on their website of “What’s your favorite thing about the holidays?” (Notice another “issue” there: They don’t say Christmas!) When young Lilly Anderson tried to write, “God, my family, my church and my friends,” Disney’s automated form flagged the word “God” and said, “Please be nice!” without further elaboration.

Cue the Christian Persecution complex! Of course, instead of reaching out to Disney, the mother, Julie Anderson, took her crusade straight to Fox “news” where Todd Starnes, perpetual exaggerator (or maker-upper) of Christian Persecution, was more than happy to take on the case.

The mother and daughter even got to be on “Fox & Friends” that Tuesday morning to talk about it, while the tag line at the bottom of the screen read, “WHY DID DISNEY BLOCK GOD?”

For a very good reason, as Kyle Mantyla explained in Right Wing Watch’s “Todd Starnes: Wrong Again” on December 3, had the statement from Disney:

“Disney employs word filtering technology to prevent profanity from appearing on our websites. Unfortunately, because so many people attempt to abuse the system and use the word “God” in conjunction with profanity, in an abundance of caution our system is forced to catch and prevent any use of the word on our websites. The company would have been happy to explain our filtering technology to the inquiring family had they contacted us.”

Disney would’ve been happy to explain that had they been asked. Obviously, since they would like to avoid negative publicity. But no, instead, the Good Christian Soldiers soldiered to Fox to present their case instead:

Disney certainly seems to be implying that thanking God is not nice. Well, neither is blocking the Almighty from a website.

Julie said her daughter is a very loving and accepting child who was raised to understand that not everyone believes in God.

“We’ve always told her that inevitably there would come a day when she would be discriminated against for her faith but we never thought Disney would be the source,” she said.

Had Todd Starnes been any kind of journalist with any sort of integrity, he would’ve attempted to contact Disney about it before publishing his story. But, that would’ve interfered with what he was trying to sell. And, the über-conservatives wouldn’t’ve bought it anyway because, of course, the 903 comments on the WND post predominantly ignore the official explanation and call Disney liars, such as top-rated comment by “pablof:”

I’m a software developer and I can tell you that Disney’s answer regarding the word “God” and profanity etc. is pure BS.

Software can easily filter out the profane use of “God ****” and the singular use of the word for “God”.

THEY ARE LIARS.

Seventh Benghazi Investigation, by Republicans, Still Flawed According to WND

I’ve only really done two WND Watch posts on Benghazi, mostly because it’s a ridiculous conspiracy that had six official congressional investigations to try to blame President Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of some sort of wrong-doing. At the end of November, after wasting hundreds if not thousands of hours and untold thousands of dollars in a seventh investigation, the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee released their report.

And … nada. To quote Right Wing Watch, it “cleared the Obama administration of wrongdoing, and follows a report from the GOP-controlled House Armed Services Committee, which also debunked many right-wing Benghazi myths.”

Not to be outdone by other conservative sources, WND’s Aaron Klein (who has a habit of reporting rumors and fake stories as FACT), posted “5 ‘Significant Problems’ with GOP’s New Benghazi Report.”

His first is that the US facility was wrongly labeled, second is confusion about Ambassador Stevens’ travel, reasons 3-4 are Klein’s typical innuendo/speculation/rumors, and reason 5 was that no air support was available. None of these give any sort of smoking gun to implicate President Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of some sort of wrong-doing. If anything, they show a general incompetence among institutions, and Congress itself must take some blame for that since the State Department repeatedly asked for more funds for security of embassies overseas, but Congress refused.

Try telling that to the 132 commenters, though, or to the people who are promising an eighth Congressional investigation, and you’ll likely get banned.

Electromagnetic Pulse Fears, Again

I’ve written about this EMP stuff before, and for those who are new to the thing, you should see my first post about it which presents a summary. One of the more recent WND scare pieces is an article from August 31, 2014, which is unattributed, and it is entitled, “Expert: ‘Imminent’ ISIS Threat to U.S. Power Grid.”

Their expert is a former CIA officer who was speaking to Aaron Klein, who readers may remember I wrote Part 7 about yesterday for how he keeps writing fake news thinking its real because he appears to lack the basic ability of a journalist to fact-check.

I have the same problem with this as I did with George W. Bush constantly keeping the terror alert level at “elevated” or orange or yellow or whatever it was. For over six years. The problem is, you can only claim something is “imminent” for so long before people who actually did believe you at first realize you’re full of excrement.

In this case, since I’ve been writing about EMP “threats” related by WND for over a year, each threat has been imminent and immediate and yet nothing has happened. Just as I said nothing would happen.

The only thing new this time is that it’s a new delivery group. While in the past when I wrote about it it had been the generic “terrorists” or China or Iran or the Sun, this time, it’s ISIS. Or ISIL. Or IS. Whatever they want to call themselves in English.

Annoyingly and perhaps expectedly, there are a lot of comments that support the article’s position — 612 of them, in fact. Even more annoying is that most of the comments are only peripherally – if at all – related to the topic at hand. Rather, most use it as a jumping point to complain about the standard über-conservative boogey man du jour, including Obama, Muslims, immigration, and Democrats.

Yet Another Fake Story from FOX “News” that WND Posts, Part 6: The Book!

Todd Starnes tweets with the mentality of an 8-year-old. He writes fake stories about Christians being persecuted — not the normal ones where they seem to be persecuted because their special rights are being reverted to normal rights, but stories where he actually makes things up. And now, he has a book about it.

Not about how he makes things up, but about his made up stories that he says are true. And, given that this is Part 6 of how WND publishes fake news stories from FOX, you can probably guess at this point that WND is supporting Todd Starnes in his latest endeavor with their own misleading headline: “You Christian? You’re Targeted,” by Paul Bremmer (published August 15, 2014).

On its face, the claim that 73% of the United States is somehow targeted is fairly laughable. I suppose it’s possible, but you’d need to provide a lot of evidence for it. Real evidence. As in, when a religious right leader has to cite three (debunked) stories of Christian persecution as evidence that Christians are being persecuted in America, it’s kinda sad. And not good evidence.

Among Todd’s made up claims are his jinned-up claims, the ones that he embellishes rather than just makes completely up:

Other attacks on Christianity routinely are reported: The condemnation of prayer in public meetings, the removal of Ten Commandments images from public places, the banishment of Nativity scenes, and memorial crosses. Schools that remove Christian references from music or art programs. Bans on Christians meeting in homes. And more.

FYI on that last one — it was a case where a pastor was holding a church in his home but the zoning was wrong for it, so the county said he couldn’t hold his church in his home, he had to actually get a permit. I think he was also trying to claim tax deductions because of it. (—See? these things always have another side to them.)

Besides my general indignation about this phenomenon about Christians complaining about persecution simply because their special rights are being taken away so that they’re equal with everyone else, I think this really does a significant disservice: Christians really are being persecuted in other parts of the world. Not in the sense that their special, elevated rights are being taken away, but that their human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being taken away. Including their life.

And it’s not as though WND writers are ignorant of this. They report it often, that a Christian in Africa or the Middle East (usually) was killed for their beliefs, including a story just a few days after this one: “Obama ‘Plays Politics’ with Christian Persecution.” It’s a story that underlines people being sentenced to death for their Christian faith in the Middle East.

That is Christian persecution, and I’d argue that it’s the religious “right” in America that are really the ones playing politics with Christian persecution, since they’re the ones who make a stink about all these things like nativity scenes in America but stay silent on Christians being killed in Muslim countries. The crybaby mentality of American Christians complaining about how they can no longer pray at a public meeting unless they let all other religions and non-religions offer prayers or statements, too, minimizes and takes away from the plight of people elsewhere who really are being persecuted and killed for their beliefs. It also shows the hypocrisy and childish attitude of these people.

Is that what Jesus would want?

Blood Moons Again

Many moons ago, I said that I wasn’t going to write anymore about this ridiculous idiocy that is the “blood moon” phenomenon that is alleged by idiots to portend the end of all days because it means bad shiz-nit is going to go down for Israel.

For some reason, I still flagged 10 WND posts about it in the past three months for talkingz-abouts when I resumed blogging.

The stories range from talking about the latest lunar eclipse blood moon being a supermoon (meaning the eclipse happens when the moon happens to be close to Earth because it’s on an elliptical orbit), to WND crowing about the moon stuff “Rock TV Audience,” to trying to tie any and every bad thing that’s happened since the last lunar eclipse in April to the eclipse, to saying that the US Naval Observatory is getting pretty pissed about the blood moon nonsense.

This last one starts off with:

Geoff Chester of the U.S. Naval Observatory says he’d be just as happy if the terms “supermoon” and “Blood Moon” would go away.

This year’s second supermoon is looming this weekend.

“There’s a part of me that wishes that this ‘Supermoon’ moniker would just dry up and blow away, like the ‘Blood Moon’ that accompanied the most recent lunar eclipse, because it tends to promulgate a lot of misinformation,” Chester said in a Science NASA report.

I agree. And then the WND article goes in to fear-mongering.

Why is WND all about this stupidity? Because they’re selling it. Literally. Mark Biltz was the first guy to make this big – I think he actually originated the phenomenon about 7 years ago – and WND publishes his book about it. WND also sells another book about it by their columnist John Hagee.

So, promoting idiocy to sell stuff. That’s WND for you.

More Persecution of the Christian Minority, Part 3: Houston, Does the Lesbian Have a Problem with Churches?

If you follow any far-right websites, church-state separation sites, or probably LGBT sites, you have seen this story. It has been going on now for over two weeks, and it seems as though WND is finally down to only posting on this once a day instead of several. So, first the (non-exhaustive) links:

• “Sermon Fight in U.S. City: ‘Send the Witch a Bible'” —by Bob Unruh (October 16, 2014)
• “Fury Unleashed Over City’s Assault on Pastors” —by Bob Unruh (October 17, 2014)
• “Pastor Who Fought Communists Now Fighting … Houston” —by Bob Unruh (October 18, 2014)
• “Houston, We Have a 1st Amendment Problem!” —by Chuck Norris (October 19, 2014)
• “Listen Up, Pastors! Perfect Solution to Houston Nonsense” —email by Rev. Clair Ford (October 19, 2014)
• “Houston’s Lesbian Mayor Turns Tyrant” —by Jesse Lee Peterson (October 19, 2014)
• “‘Houston 5’ Pastor: Sermon Fight ‘Hit Nerve’ for America” —by Bob Unruh (October 20, 2014)
• “‘Vile, Filthy’: Rush Rips Houston Mayor’s Sermon Grab” —by Joe Kovacs (October 22, 2014)
• “Civil-Rights Official Chastises Houston Mayor” —by Bob Unruh (October 23, 2014)
• “Houston Story Changes in Fight with Pastors” —by Bob Unruh (October 23, 2014)
• “The Criminalization of Christianity Is Here” —by Joseph Farah (October 26, 2014)
• “Pastor Speaks Out on Houston Mayor: ‘You Will See More of This'” —by Leo Hohmann (October 26, 2014)
• “Lesbian Mayor: Daughter Denied License Due to ‘2 Moms'” —by Bob Unruh (October 27, 2014)
• “‘Gay’ Zealots Bare Their Fangs” —by Joseph Farah (October 27, 2014)

If you were to focus on the WND headlines and have the vaguest idea of what this is about, you would conclude the following: (1) The mayor of Houston is a lesbian (a really “big” lesbian, based on the repeat of this adjective in the headlines), (2) she has demanded that area pastors turn in all copies of their sermons, (3) in clear violation of church-state separation, and (4) that pastors are protesting.

So, what’s really going on?

The story started many months ago, when the mayor of Houston, Annise Parker (who does happen to be a lesbian), championed an anti-discrimination ordinance (HERO: Houston Equal Rights Ordinance) that protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Texas is pretty conservative, so it was opposed, including to the next ballot. But, the petitioners failed to get enough signatures to get it on the ballot for repeal. Darn.

The petitioners are claiming that the City Attorney, David Feldman, wrongly decided they hadn’t gathered enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, and they will have their day in court in January 2015.

That’s the first part. The second part of this is to remember that America has this thing called “separation of church and state.” I know that many conservatives don’t like this, and don’t think it applies to the church affecting the state – just vice versa – but case law would seem to go against that. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a rule that enforces this church-state separation, in that the IRS won’t tax a church if it stays out of state business. Put more bluntly and specifically, the 1954 Johnson Amendment bans tax-exempt 501(C) organizations from intervening in political campaigns.

Officials in the city of Houston had a feeling that this was not followed by local pastors, that the local pastors advocated for the repeal of the measure. Which would put it at odds with church-state separation; or, at the very least, it would put them at odds with their tax-exempt status.

And so, city attorneys took the rare measure of subpoenaing, as part of discovery because of the suit the petitioners filed against the city (as in, they brought this on themselves), “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.” They “were issued to several high-profile pastors and religious leaders who have been vocal in opposing the ordinance. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion on behalf of the pastors seeking to quash the subpoenas.” (source)

Perhaps most importantly, Mayor Parker did not even know about – let alone initiate – the subpoenas. In fact, she criticized the city attorneys after she found out about it. Somehow WND seems to have failed to notice this very salient point.

At this point, we can reject the second conclusion from the WND headlines. And if it wasn’t obvious, the first one is a non sequitur because someone’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with any of this in terms of its legality. Though, Pat Robertson would beg to differ.

The third point, the violation of church-state separation, is a more interesting question. Before reading anyone else’s commentary on it, I admit that this was an eye-raiser for me because it seems like it’s treading on thin ice. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that this was okay. The state isn’t telling the church what to do. It isn’t asking for anything that’s private. It’s asking for something that anyone who went to the sermons – which are open to anyone – could have learned.

That said, people with far more legal expertise than I do think that while this isn’t necessarily unconstitutional, it is over-reach: “[The legality] presupposes that the information in the subpoenaed sermons really is substantially relevant to a case or an investigation. I don’t quite see how “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession” would be relevant to the litigation about the validity of the referendum petitions.” (source)

And, since the severe backlash, including a letter from the Texas Attorney General, the city attorneys have backed down.

Meanwhile, on the right, there’s some hypocrisy going on. The American Family Association (AFA), a far-right Christian group who is likewise outraged over this, has long held that the First Amendment only applies to forbidding Congress from interfering with the church (and only the Christian churches), nothing more. Their entire case, in this case, rests on a local Mayor (which is inaccurate – it’s the city attorneys). But, AFA’s spokesmouth has stated this:

First, the amendment applies only to Congress. “Congress shall make no law…” No other entity is restrained by the First Amendment. Since the amendment applies only to Congress, it is legally, historically and constitutionally impossible for a state, a county commission, a city council, a school board, a school principal, a school teacher or a student to violate the First Amendment. This is for one simple reason: none of them is Congress. Violating the First Amendment is something only Congress can do.

Hmmmmmm….

This has also given many people and groups the opportunity for (un-)righteous indignation. Such as Ted Cruz, who agrees with fear-mongers that pastors may soon be “hauled off to jail for a hate crime” for just preaching what they want to preach. Others, like Glen Beck, say that this is the most dangerous thing they have ever seen.

Overall, WND posted a lot about this. Most of it came from their chief in anti-gay writing, Bob Unruh, though it also made two of founder and CEO Joseph Farah’s columns. Not to mention one by Chuck Norris and the main tabloid rumor reporter, Joe Kovacs. It has spawned very roughly 4700 comments on WND across the posts that I clicked on and linked to above.

Meanwhile, it gave the über-right a rallying cry of another (made-up) example of (false) Christian Persecution. Because laws are made for everyone else, and hyperbole is okay in an election year.

That in mind, I don’t expect to write about this anymore, baring a major new development.