Posts Tagged ‘Hypocrisy’

I was going through my RSS feed and found this gem by WND’s Joe Kovacs: “Inquisition: College Girl Gets 3rd Degree for Being Jew.”

The story is that, allegedly, “the student government at UCLA interrogated a young student about the fact she is Jewish, and nearly scrapped her acceptance to its group because of her religious heritage.”

In other words, they weren’t going to let a person do something because they weren’t the correct religion.

Except, that’s exactly what WND wants for every religion except Christianity, and perhaps Judaism. Muslim? Hindu? Wiccan? Atheist? WND writers would ardently advocate for you not to be able to hold any public office or, in some cases, even vote. This is in part rooted in – or at least “supported by” – a constant stream of articles that America is a “Christian Nation.”

Hypocrites much?


Larry Klayman, perhaps better known as the guy who led thousands tens of people in Washington, D.C. in an attempt to get President Obama to resign, really doesn’t like Muslims. Which is like saying “water is wet” when talking about most columnists on World Net Daily.

In this case, after his failure, perhaps Klayman thought he’d have better luck spreading his Islamophobia by attaching it with a paperclip to anti-immigation sentiment among the broader conservative movement. For now, Klayman is advocating what America did to the Irish and then the Chinese and many other ethnic groups a century ago— limit immigration: “Time to Limit Muslim Immigration.”

Here’s the opening paragraph:

The time for political correctness is over. It is time to call it like it is. The nation hangs in the balance, and making excuses for the destructive conduct of President Barack Hussein Obama and his American Muslim constituency no longer cuts it. His acts are not the result of someone who is ill-prepared and disconnected from the office of the president. He and his racist, anti-white, socialist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian minions – from Attorney General Eric Holder, to Secretary of State John Kerry, to closet Muslim Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan – know exactly what they are doing. To complement the race war Obama and Holder have stoked at home, Obama and Brennan are bent on furthering an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and around the globe. These are evil men, bent on taking the United States and its allies down. For Obama’s part, he not only identifies with his Muslim roots, he acts on them. Brennan is simply the white stooge who, among others, helps Obama carry out the plan.

That’s an impressive amount of hate in a single paragraph. It seems like anyone he hates is a Muslim. Doesn’t matter if they’re not, to Larry Klayman, they’re just hiding it.

It seems like Klayman’s argument is one of self-defense: “While Muslims have thus far not succeeded in wiping us off the face of the earth, much less exterminating Israel – the land of Jesus and Moses – the bottom line is that most of them hate our guts.”

And, there’s almost no such thing as a good Muslim: “If American Muslims had tried to play a constructive role with their terrorist brothers, that would be one thing. But by and large they sit back and silently cheer events like September 11, or the beheading of American journalists.”

So, he wants to stop all immigration for anyone who is Muslim, “unless there are proven and legitimate family or humanitarian reasons for entry.”

He claims he’s not being racist, he’s just trying to protect America! Never mind that less than 2% of Americans are Muslim. Or that the largest, most comprehensive survey of Muslims show that they are just as likely to reject radical and militant Islam as the average American.

But don’t let facts get in the way of bigotry.

Meanwhile, WND’s Lord Monckton decides to tackle the Issues of Our Day in a different way: “The Quran Is Illegal.”

Since I’m a big advocate of the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, even if it’s speech I don’t like, I was interested to see what Monckton’s reasoned justification would be. His first sentence made me dubious I would find it: “For obvious reasons, incitement to murder is a serious crime.” When I read that, I figured he was going to say that because there are verses in the Quran that advocate violence, it should be illegal.

Along the way looking for this passage, I came across this sentence, which directly contradicts Larry Klayman: “The great majority of Muslims, wherever they are in the world, do their best to live in peace with their neighbors.”

He points these out:

For instance: “Fight and kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush” (Sura 9, Verse 5).

Or: “Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given who believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden, until they pay tribute” (9.29).

Or: “When you encounter the infidels, strike off their heads, until you have made a great slaughter among them” (47.4).

And here’s his justification, just as I predicted:

Given the venom on every page of this extended incitement to murder anyone who does not follow Islam, it is surprising that there is not more Islamic terror than there is.

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

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

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

So, the Quran is a person and he or she is inciting murder. Well, I guess if corporations are people, too …

Here’s the problem: Monckton is correct. Not that it should be illegal, but that “freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.” If it weren’t, then most of the writers from World Net Daily would be in prison for calling for, among other things, overthrows of the US government and various incitements of violence against non-straight people and against anyone who isn’t Christian or Jewish. Some of them on WND itself, but for the most part, they tend to confine their outright calls for such things to other media outlets.

If that explanation doesn’t work, I think that “Rm Mize”‘s top-rated comment is also good justification:

How’s this for incitement to murder?

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Oh, but that’s not the Qu’ran. That’s Deuteronomy 13:6-11 (NIV)

Do you plan on making the Bible illegal as well? Or just the Torah? You do realize that Islam is related to Christianity in the same way Christianity is related to Judaism, right? I’m not advocating it as a belief system, I’m just saying that your knee-jerk reactions are hypocritical. You come off looking more like Pharisees than followers of Christ–who was actually pretty accepting of diversity if his closest friends are anything to go by.

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?

Ah, the subtle racism (or not-so-subtle racism) of the modern white ultra-conservative, unsuccessfully shrouded in claims of fairness and voter fraud. When Eric Cantor lost his primary election to a Tea Party challenger, who spent less on his entire campaign than Cantor did on restaurants, the Tea Party was re-invigorated, several thinking they could now finally do what they dreamed: Unseat every “establishment” Republican they could.

One of the nastiest races this primary campaign season for the Republicans has been in Mississippi. For a little bit on how low it went, supporters of the Tea Party challenger snuck into a nursing home where the challenge-e’s wife resides due to Alzheimer’s in some attempt to smear the guy character-wise. And one of them later committed suicide.

But after Cantor’s loss, it looked like the Tea Party challenger, Chris McDaniel, was going to beat the current Senator, Thad Cochran. In the last few days before the election, Cochran decided to start to reach out to the “black vote.” Apparently, the laws are such that in Mississippi, there is no party affiliation for primary elections, and so long as you did not vote in the other party’s election that was before this one, you can vote.

In response, McDaniel’s Tea Party was talking about putting in election monitors, bringing allegations of voter intimidation. WND didn’t report on that, but they did report on “NAACP Monitoring Tea-Party Poll Watchers.”

And in the end, McDaniel lost. Tea Partiers rallied against it, claiming their own voters were intimidated, that there was fraud, that Cochran bought the vote with Democrats, and so that, yes, in the 21st century, we are talking about the legitimacy of Americans of African decent’s right to vote.

Meanwhile, token black female (I was corrected last time — there are one or two other black writers that WND publishes) Star Parker wrote about this in what, at least tag-line-wise, is sensible: “How McDaniel Blew It in Mississippi;” the tagline is, “Star Parker: Conservative Republicans ignore blacks to their peril.”

Here is her thesis:

Incumbent Republican Sen. Thad Cochran’s successful game plan, which drove his run-off victory over tea party challenger Chris McDaniel for Mississippi’s Republican Senate nomination, was unconventional.

But most incredible was the success of this game plan – to reach out to liberal black churches and get Democratic black voters to turn out and vote for Cochran – despite being executed in broad daylight.

Soon after Cochran lost to McDaniel in the primary, necessitating a run-off because McDaniel fell short of getting 50 percent of the vote, papers reported the intent of Cochran’s team to turn out black Democrats to overcome the thin margin by which Cochran lost.

McDaniel knew exactly what to expect. The Cochran campaign told him. Yet he remained a spectator through it all. His counter strategy was no counter strategy; he just continued what he was already doing – appealing just to Mississippi’s conservative, white electorate.

I generally agree with the basic idea: If you ignore a large constituency, you’re not going to win.

Many WND commenters disagree. Take the top-rated comment by “Rene Girrard,” who ranted: “Star, I’ll bet you voted for Obama. I’ll bet you’re part of the great hypocrisy in the black community. The black people are a strong church going culture and conservative by nature, but 90% still vote democrat. Somehow financial benefits and special job slots for blacks trump their Christian convictions? So what does it matter what McDaniel might have said to the black community?”

“ramblindon” claimed that there was voter fraud. “palinwhitehouse2016” (shudder) is actually musing about restricting the votes to whites-only, though I’m having a hard time determining if it’s a Poe or not:

It seems to me that America was a much more glorious and God-blessed country in a time, in living memory of some of us, when low information individuals were prevented from voting, across a lot of the country but certainly in the South, including Mississippi. Would it be so hard to re-introduce such laws again? Liberals might complain, but there is no doubt that we would be making a step back towards an America that readers of this site would love again.

While Star’s column was published on Friday, June 27, Leo Hohmann wrote his a day later: “Call for Volunteers to Overturn Mississippi Vote.”

As you may have inferred from the description above, it’s voter fraud that they think may have cost them the election. Remember, if a voter voted in the primary election for Democrats – which was held earlier – then they can’t vote in the Republican primary. So, that’s what they think (or are saying, but want to back up) happened:

McDaniel’s campaign said it is finding significant evidence of voter irregularities in Tuesday’s election and is mulling legal options.

Noel Fritsch, communications director for the McDaniel campaign, said the campaign is in heavy-duty research mode right now and will be making a decision soon on whether to file legal action.

“We’re examining all the data we are able to get a hold of, but we are having a hard time getting all of the data we need right now because about half of the circuit clerks are not cooperating with our requests,” Fritsch told WND. “Despite that, based on the data we do have, we have found a lot that is heartening for us. Our preliminary findings certainly indicate that a thorough examination is warranted.”

He said that as soon as the campaign has completed the research phase, “we will decide at such time whether any legal action will be taken.”

The article is much longer than that, going into lots of unsubstantiated allegations. In what many described as the nastiest primary in the country this year, I think it’s only going to get nastier. And, I think that it is going to cost Republicans – and especially the Tea Party – the black vote. In their 2012 post-mortem, the Republican party clearly recognized that they are, in general, the Old White Men party and they need to reach out to non-caucasians. It’s stuff like this that further alienate that growing demographic that may NOT be happy with Democrats … but when the Republicans are questioning their very right to vote, well, it’s a fairly clear choice.

Edited to Add (July 1, 2014): WND’s James Simpson points out that, “Mississippi GOP, State Sued Over Vote Fraud,” with some interesting allegations that – gasp! – a federal law about voting trumps a state law! I wonder if the hypocrisy was recognized here, since these folks are usually all about the “over-reach” of the Federal government into States’ affair.s

Edited to Add (July 3, 2014): Time is reporting that McDaniel is mounting a legal challenge to the primary election results.

Edited to Add (July 14, 2014): Washington Post reports that the conspiracies are being debunked, and McDaniel’s legal ground for a challenge to the vote is pretty much non-existent.

On May 16, Matt Barber published a column on WND: “How Liberalism Violates All 10 Commandments.” In it, he has very clearly conflated “conservative” with “religious,” but let’s go through them just for kicks, shall we?

I’ll give you his conclusion, first:

In sum, liberalism is folly. It represents man’s futile attempt to disorder God’s natural order. It’s the unholy brainchild of God’s very first enemy, given by that enemy to God’s favored creation, us, with the sole purpose of destroying that creation.

That out of the way, let’s get going with #1

1. Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me.

At worst, liberalism denies the very existence of God in the forms of atheism and secularism, while, at best, it adopts that wonderfully “inclusive” blasphemy called religious pluralism. Pluralism presumes to give the false gods of false religions equal footing and denies Christ as He defined Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Liberal “Christianity” falls under this category. It’s pluralism with a Christian stamp.

Secular humanism, liberalism’s prevailing false religion, denies God altogether and crowns man as king over himself and the measure of all things. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

Barber’s claim of violation here only applies to those who are not religious. Now, it is generally true that those who identify themselves as “atheist” or “agnostic” tend to vote democrat, with 73% voting that way versus 18% for republican (according to this 2012 Pew poll). So, what Barber is claiming must also be true for many conservatives. I do happen to know several atheists who are conservative politically. I think many more would be if Republicans would just get out of bed with the Church.

2. Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images.

We’re talking idolatry here. Liberalism is built on it. First, there’s literal idolatry (the worship of man-made idols, animals or inanimate objects) enjoyed by our New Age friends. And then there’s everything else: pantheistic environmentalism, the idols of “reproductive freedom,” “sexual liberation and equality,” etc.

Essentially, liberalism worships the created over the Creator. Liberalism also worships the sins of the flesh (see Commandments No. 1, 6 and 7).

This is again a pretty obvious pigeon-holing: Those who are environmentalists, or feminists, or not Puritans with Victorian-era ideas of sexuality, must also be liberal. But, that’s simply not the case. Next!

3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Lord’s Name in Vain.

To deny God is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To deny God as He defines Himself is to take the Lord’s name in vain. To misrepresent God, to call other gods God or to deny the deity of Christ is to take the Lord’s name in vain. Liberalism does this and much more. Many liberals also mock Christ, Christianity and Christians. They revile the exclusive nature of Jesus, His commands and His faithful followers. They hate truth.

Barber’s claim to this one is redundant with the first. I claim double-dipping. Or, “sloppy seconds” if you would continue the disgusting metaphor I set up with the title to this blog post.

I might also argue that it is liberals – generally speaking – who actually appreciate “truth” much more than religious conservatives. That’s because liberals tend to accept science more than conservatives. I know that’s a fairly blanket statement almost worthy of Matt Barber himself, but it is generally the case that, for the last decade or so (since Bush II?) that Republicans/conservatives have been much more prone to rejecting scientific findings based on ideology than science.

Now, if Matt meant “truth” as in “Truth,” then sure. That’s because unless you’re religious, you know there is no such thing as Truth.

4. Remember to Keep Holy the Sabbath.

This one is a bit tricky as it is widely understood to fall under the Jewish ceremonial law, not the moral law – the old covenant, not the new. Christ Himself healed (worked) on the Sabbath. That said, many Christians still view Sunday as the Sabbath and do, indeed, keep it holy. Not all liberals (there are certainly liberal Jews), but liberalism at large denies the Sabbath any significance whatsoever, much less a holy significance.

I seriously call foul on this one. I want to see his numbers that support the idea that more conservatives don’t work, don’t do anything but rest and go to their religious institute on the Sabbath. Which of course requires that !(liberal) = conservative = Judeo-Christian because you have set the prerequisite that !(liberal) must believe in the Sabbath. I know plenty of Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists who are conservative.

5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother.

Liberalism seeks to supplant parents with “progressive” government. It diminishes parental rights and encourages children to rebel against the antiquated conventions held by mom and dad. It denies that children even need a mother and father and bristles at the “heteronormative” lack of “gender neutrality” inherent within the very words “mother and father.” The sin-centered, counter-biblical notion of “gay marriage” desecrates God’s design for true marriage and family and is intended to undermine these cornerstone institutions.

It’s Matt Barber, so of course The Big Bad Gay has to be worked in there.

6. Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Abortion, euthanasia, “pro-choice,” “reproductive rights,” “death with dignity.” Need I say more? Sacrosanct is the liberal rite of passage for a feminist mother to slaughter her own child in the womb. Fifty-five million dead babies later, liberals continue to worship at the pagan altar of “choice” (see Commandments No. 1 and 2).

“Capital punishment.” Need I say more? Conservatives aren’t any more or less “pro-life” than liberals, they just like to procrastinate.

7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

This means all sexual immorality as identified in the scriptures, to include marital infidelity, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, et al. Liberalism, it seems, embraces all perversions of God’s design for human sexuality. Central to liberalism is moral relativism. When it comes to sex, you can do no wrong because there is no wrong.

I think a lot of Christians would disagree with Matt Barber on this one, equating simple “adultery” with fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and everything else he doesn’t like. And I’d hazard to guess that the same number of conservatives as liberals commit adultery.

8. Thou Shalt Not Steal.

With class warfare as its fuel, liberalism embraces the redistributionist philosophies of Marx and Engels. Liberalism thrives on theft. Like some completely incompetent and inefficient Robin Hood, liberal government steals from the middle class to give to the poor, thereby ensuring liberal politicians remain in power.

As with #7, we’ve moved away from a literal reading of these Commandments into a, “I’m going to interpret these however the hell I want” (oops, did I just commit blasphemy?).

9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

I give you Saul Alinsky from his Rules for Radicals: “The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.” As we’ve learned from Barack “you can keep your insurance” Obama, that includes lying. Liberals lie. That’s what they do. The ends justify the means. Bearing false witness about detractors of liberalism is par for the course.

Pot, meet the kettle. You want examples of conservatives lying? Just search this blog for pretty much anything Aaron Klein or Todd Starnes.

10. Thou Shalt Not Covet.

Again, liberalism uses man’s inherent covetousness as the driving force behind all liberal economic policies. Creating a political climate of economic envy and class warfare gives liberal government the cover needed to take wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who don’t. Not only does liberalism violate this commandment, liberalism commands its adherents to do the exact opposite. “Thou shalt covet.”

As Satan “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so, too, does liberalism masquerade as good. It’s deceptively packaged in flowery euphemisms and feel-good sound bites that promise “equality,” “tolerance” and libertine notions of “social justice.”

Sloppy seconds again #5. Which is odd — I’d like to see anyone else somehow claim that the 5th commandment is equal to the 10th commandment.

And that, dear reader, is apparently how liberals (but not conservatives!) violate all 10 Commandments. He got 211 happy comments for his efforts.

Brian C. Joondeph wrote a column for WND, published on February 2, 2014, entitled, “Immigration Speech John Boehner Should Give.” I have no idea why it has no comments, for it seems right up an ültra-conservative’s alley. I reproduce it here in full for commentary purposes:

My fellow Americans, the majority of you believe that our current immigration system is broken and in need of major change. Now 92 million of you are not part of the American workforce. With the best interests of America in mind, particularly those who are not working, House Republicans propose the following changes to our immigration laws.

Going forward, the U.S. will only welcome foreigners who will be useful to American society, contributing to national progress. They must have the necessary funds to support themselves and their dependents. Foreigners will be barred from the U.S. if they are detrimental to our economic or national interests.

If they are not good citizens or have broken laws in their home country, they will be denied entry into the U.S. Furthermore, they must be physically and mentally healthy before entering the U.S.

A national registry will keep track of the entire U.S. population, with foreign tourists and immigrants assigned a unique tracking number. Foreigners with false immigration documents will be fined or imprisoned, as will any foreigner falsifying their signature on a government document.

Any foreigner who is deported and who re-enters the U.S. without authorization may be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Foreigners working in the U.S. without a proper work permit can also be imprisoned. Transportation companies bringing undocumented foreigners into the U.S. will be fined.

Non-U.S. citizens will be prohibited from participating in American political life, including protests and demonstrations and any public expression of political opinion. Foreigners may not own American land within 60 miles of a national land border or within 30 miles of the coastal border. To serve in the military, one must be American by birth. This also holds for captains, pilots, engineers and mechanics.


Just … wow.

It’s nice that this guy is putting this out there so everyone can see how much of a xenophobic hypocritical racist bigot he is. Why do I level those charges? Well, let’s see …

  • To get in, you have to be “useful” and monetarily stable. So much for the plaque on the Statue of Liberty*.
  • We’re going to do a background check on you and you can’t have gotten into any trouble before.
  • We’re going to have our doctors check you out to make sure you’re physically okay. And not hearing voices … unless those voices are God, Jesus, or Angels.
  • We’re going to track each and everyone one of our citizens.
  • We’re going to track every foreigner who’s here.
  • If you’re not a citizen (remember, we track everyone, so we know who you are, what your status is, and where you are), you can’t go to protests or demonstrations of any public or political nature. So much for the First Amendment (freedom of assembly).
  • If you’re not a citizen, you can’t buy any property here. Guess that means we’ll be nationalizing all coastal holdings by BP, Shell, all those buildings owned by Saudis, etc.
  • We have a problem with army recruitment, but we’re going to restrict signing up to just people born here. Not just fightin’ folks, but EVERYONE.

Wow. So, that’s why I call him a xenophobic hypocritical racist bigot. The hypocritical part comes in because conservatives allegedly hate Big Government (except in peoples’ bedrooms), but this guy wants the government to check everyone out mentally and physically and keep track of every single person, where they go, who they are, etc.

*“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

This topic was hotly debated on the LGBT blogs/sites I read when it happened: Itay Hod, a former CBS News contributor, stated that he had evidence that Representative Aaron Schock (Republican from Illinois) is gay (not Aaron Shock, as WND incorrectly wrote three times). Schock is 32, has amazing abs, and is one of the best-dressed. Stereotypes, and without an “admission” by Schock the rumor is still that, but Hod did have evidence that he presented.

The reason that Hod went forward with this is the perceived hypocrisy of Rep. Schock’s voting record: Being very anti-gay, he has opposed the repeal of the US Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and he has supported a federal marriage amendment (which, contrary to its inclusive-sounding name, would prohibit marriage between anyone other than one man and one woman). Pointing out hypocrisy by politicians is what journalists live for (at least in part).

As I said, the topic was debated on the LGBT sites I read, and there were VERY mixed opinions. Most were against it. I am of mixed opinion, personally, but at the end of the day, I would say I probably come down on the side of pointing out the hypocrisy IF I have iron-clad evidence it’s real. For example, the anti-gay priest who sleeps with a male prostitute, yeah, I’m going to out him.

But, World Net Daily will have none of that, representing (in my opinion), more hypocrisy: “‘Gay’ Sites Go Wild ‘Outing’ GOP Congressman.” Except they didn’t “go wild,” and WND does not post any evidence they did; all they post is a screenshot from Facebook. And it’s far from a “WND EXCLUSIVE” about the story … perhaps the “exclusive” is that they’re the only ones claiming that the sites went “wild” with it because, well, they didn’t.

The story got 153 ratings since it was posted on January 4, 2014, and it has 1234 comments (neat!). The reason I say that the story represents hypocrisy is that WND delights in any apparent hypocrisy (real or made up) that it can print about democrats or liberal policies or groups. Meanwhile, the comments defend Schock and demonstrate mud-flinging perceived insults. The perceived insult is that being gay is bad. One must remember that to see these as insults, as they were intended.

Take, for example, the second-highest-rated comment, by “Jack Dillon” (51 up, 1 down vote): “Character assassination by the sexual perverts.”

Or the third-highest, by “Jim Buzzell” (49 up, 1 down): “From the mind of a flaming heterosexual: What is his voting record? Does being homosexual negate one from being a Constitutional Conservative? Does being homosexual mean you must support the gay rights organizations and their ideals? Does being homosexual mean you must force your beliefs on everyone else? If the homosexuals are so intent on outing those that choose to keep their sexual orientation to themselves, why not out Obama, Hillary Clinton, Holder, Emmanuel? Would those outings up the homosexual gain?” Because, remember, all those people he lists at the end are gay because he thinks being gay is an insult.

I don’t think much more needs to be said about this, at least at this time, on my part.