Posts Tagged ‘Joe Kovacs’

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?


This one has several components to it, so let’s get right down to the story bo Joe Kovacs on September 17, 2014: “Dunkin’ Donuts Refuses to Hire Sabbath-Keeper.”

Note the way that headline is written. Already, it implies that “keeping the sabbath” is something good and should be protected, while Dunkin’ Donuts (which I keep wanting to write as “Doughnuts”) is horribly bad for infringing on that “right.”

And that’s really the main theme of the article. I’ll quote the few relevant parts:

[A] Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee … rescinded its job offer to a Christian man solely because he wanted to keep the weekly Sabbath holy, which is one of the Ten Commandments.

Darrell Littrell of Asheville, North Carolina, is a Seventh-day Adventist who holds the belief he cannot work on the Sabbath day, which he observes from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday.

After reading that selectively quoted part (selectively quoted for reasons you’ll read in a moment), my classic response is: You don’t have a right to be treated special in your job just because you don’t want to work on a certain day when everyone else who works at that job has to be able to work that day. That would be special privilege, rather than persecution for not allowing it. Plain and simple.

What makes this story have “several components to it,” and why I selectively quoted that first sentence, is this set of sentences (this time, the first sentence without the selective quoting):

The U.S. federal government is now suing a Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee […]. […]

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Around Dec. 15, 2012, Littrell applied for the position of a donut maker at the Citi Brands’ manufacturing facility in Arden, North Carolina, and was later interviewed by the company’s plant manager.

“On Jan. 3, 2013, the plant manager offered Littrell the donut maker position, and told Littrell he would start work the next afternoon, a Friday, at 3 p.m.

“Littrell responded that he could not start work on Friday afternoon because as part of his faith, he does not work from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday. The plant manager responded by revoking Littrell’s job offer.”

The EEOC has now filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Citi Brands, LLC, the franchisee in question for Dunkin’ Donuts. The action comes after it first attempted to reach a voluntary settlement through administrative conciliation process.

The legal action is seeking back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Littrell, as well as injunctive and other non-monetary relief.

“Employers should be mindful that it is against the law to discriminate against an applicant or an employee based on his religion, including the observance of the Sabbath,” said Lynette Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte district.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from refusing to hire people because of their religion, and requires employers to make an effort at a reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs.

Wow. I think I’ve written once or twice about the EEOC (yup— once when talking about hiring/firing due to sexual orientation), and it was favorable.

This, however, I think is out of line. Yes, you canNOT refuse to hire someone because of their religion or desire to celebrate certain religious days. But, I do not think a reasonable interpretation of that is to say you MUST hire someone even when their interpretation of their religion means they can’t work 14% of the time when anyone else in that position must be available to work during that time.

The third component of this story is that this is clearly a government regulatory agency imposing a lawsuit on a business. Which s the bane of most conservative causes (one of the major themes of conservatives in the US is smaller government, less regulation, corporations have more autonomy in general). Therefore, this seems like something that would generate some sort of cognitive dissonance.

And it did, at least a little, amongst the 1089 comments. Such as the top-rated one by “Just Me:” “To say that I’m stunned that the EEOC is defending a Christian would be the classic understatement.”

However, a few high-ranked comments are ones that support my points. Such as, “StampOutLiberalism” who wrote: “As a Christian, I appreciate this man’s conviction to his faith, but Dunkin’ Donuts has a business to run and if Mr. Littrell can’t fulfill the job requirements he should look elsewhere for employment. The Government shouldn’t be involved in this.”

Or Dave:

Strangely, I find myself on the side of the business this time, and not rooting for the Christian person. That’s because for Dunkin Donuts this isn’t a religious freedom issue at all.

1. They had a job opening in a certain time slot.
2. They hired a guy to work in that time slot.
3. The guy refused to work in that time slot.
4. Say goodbye to the guy, and go back to Craig’s List to fill the spot.

You’d have to think there’s something strange about a guy who would go through steps 1-4, and then add a fifth step — Blame the employer for offering him a job in a time slot that he refused to work.

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”.


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:

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.


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.

Quite awhile ago, I said that the legal march in the US towards equality and non-discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation is continuing, perhaps accelerating, and fervently opposed by the über-conservatives which World Net Daily embodies. And because of that, I was getting somewhat annoyed with the broken-record that I was reporting on here. So this is just a summary of some of the news I flagged over the last two weeks (yay TAM break!).

First off, on July 6, we had Scott Lively write, “‘Gay’ Agenda? What ‘Gay’ Agenda?” Which under normal circumstances I would think is a skeptical look at the vast conspiracy thinking that holds that a massive number of gays and their supporters are trying to take over the world. But this is Scott Lively writing on WND:

Mentioning the “gay” agenda in the presence of an LGBT activist or any other cultural Marxist is like pulling the string on a Sheriff Woody doll. You hear precisely the same recording each time: “What gay agenda? There is no gay agenda.”

But, of course, the audacious lie that the now-global LGBT political movement has “no agenda” is as transparent as the emperor’s new clothes. Indeed, their agenda is not only undeniable, it has unfortunately become unavoidable.

The rest of the post is an attempt to support his concluding paragraph, which I summarized in one sentence above:

In summary, the “gay” agenda is to eliminate the existing Judeo-Christian model of civilization, grounded in marriage-based procreative sexuality, to make way for an irrational and impossible cultural Marxist model which imagines family-less, unlimited “sexual freedom” (anarchy), while somehow preserving orderliness in every other aspect of human society. It reflects an insane and Satanic delusion that breeds chaos, and can only be stopped by unceasing reaffirmation of biblical values and the natural family by the rest of us.

It’s difficult to try to make light, humorize, or parody this kind of thing because it is its own parody. “Insane and Satanic delusion”? Really?

Moving on, in the totally not-gay business of baking cakes and decorating them with colorful icing, Bob Unruh on July 7 informed us that Another Baker Ordered to Endorse Homosexuality.” In Northern Ireland. Grand! But there’s hope in the US, because Bob reported on July 17 that in Colorado, “Baker Appeals Government Re-Education Order.”

A Lakewood, Colorado, bakery owner has appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals an order from the state’s Civil Rights Commission that he take his employees through a mandatory re-education process because of his religious objections to promoting same-sex marriage, which the state constitution does not recognize.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, who represents Masterpiece Cakeshop artist Jack Phillips, says the order by state bureaucrats requires Phillips to “re-educate” his employees so that they “endorse all views.” Phillips also must file quarterly reports for two years proving that the “re-education” has been implemented.

The title is a clear allusion to Communism and totalitarian societies.

Meanwhile, Selena Owens declared on July 8, “Marriage: Not an Experiment!” She’s correct, it’s not. It’s a social and religious contract that has been a tradition only in its coarsest of ideas for thousands of years, but the specifics have varied not only by society and country, but by almost decade after decade. It was when governments got involved and granted literally hundreds (and in the US, over 1000) legal rights to people who are married (such as hospital visitation, joint tax filing, can’t be compelled to testify against spouse, etc.) that those legal protections were wanted by same-sex couples who love each other just as much as opposite-sex couples who have >50% divorce rate in the US. (And let’s not forget Britney Spears’ 54-hour “just for fun” totally-not-an-experiment marriage from a decade ago.)

But no, totally not an experiment, totally set in stone and totally unchanging. But I digress, since her column is actually about a stupid new reality TV show:

“Married at First Sight” is a new “social experiment” show from A&E’s new FYI network, (based on a Danish version of the show) that pairs three couples who agree to marry upon their first initial meeting. That’s right; the very first date for these couples will be when they actually walk down the aisle to join together in matrimony. The show “will follow the classic lifestyle stories of newlyweds – from the honeymoon to early nesting to other relatable events of married life. After several weeks together, the couple must make a decision: Do they remain together or do they separate?”

But since I already wrote my rant, I’ll leave it in.

In the continued march towards state recognition of marriage equality, on July 9, “Judge Tosses Colorado ‘Gay’-Marriage Ban,” and on July 18, “Federal Court Rules for ‘Gay’ Marriage in Oklahoma.” But just like last time when there was a flurry of judicial rulings that pointed out the prohibited discriminatory nature of not letting same-sex couples wed, Bob Unruh charged in on July 19 to remind people, “Activist Judges Push ‘Gay Marriage.'”

The reason I’m not talking about the comments on these, like the 624 (so far) on Bob’s story, is that they are exactly what you would expect from WND, complaining about judicial activists or crying about Jesus being banned.

Speaking about Jesus being banned, Joseph Farah used his July 11 column to remind us, “Christians Are Not Hostile to ‘Gays.'” Nope, and the very fact you put scare-quotes around “gay” just proves how loving you are. (Remember: Farah is the founder and CEO of WND.) Farah takes the common BS reminder that Christians hate the sin, not the sinner:

The job of evangelicals is to evangelize.

You don’t evangelize non-sinners. The act of evangelizing is to confront sinners with their fallen state – their shortcomings, their appointment with death. It is that act that brings sinners to salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. That’s why He died on the cross – to give sinners a chance for eternal life. He died for them, us, you and me. And He conquered death for them through this sacrificial act when He rose from the dead.

Neither Jesus nor any true evangelical would ever be “hostile” to sinners. In fact, it is an act of love to share the gospel with them. But sharing the gospel means confronting the reality of sin, not excusing it, condoning it, glorifying it or participating in it.

The problem with this is found in the Bible itself, in Matthew 7:16: “By their fruit you will recognize them.” (NIV) So you can preach whatever “love” you want, but when your actions are hostile, violent, and denying of basic human equality, they belie your tender words. But of course, Christians think that it’s them who are under attack: “Left Moves to Outlaw Christianity,” by Matt Barber, also on July 11.

But The Gay is permeating society, with beloved comic character Archie from the eponymous comic series sacrificing himself: “‘Archie’ Dies Saving ‘Gay’ Friend.” Sigh.

And while we’re talking about WND devolving into a tabloid, also on the LGBT “news” track is a story form July 15 by Joe Kovacs, who wrote “Ellen’s Wife ‘Secretly Filmed Abuse to Expose Her.'” And so far as I can tell, this is one source from one celebrity rumor site with no substantiation and no public confirmation by anyone. But as I have pointed out many times on this blog, Joe Kovacs, despite being “an award-winning journalist and, since 1999, executive news editor of WND,” tends to report rumors that are completely unsubstantiated that would make even most bloggers blush at trying to report as genuine.

Also on July 15, it was announced that the town of Salem, MA, is terminating (really, just not renewing) its contract with Gordon College because Gordon College discriminates against LGBT people (and it’s allowed because it’s private, and it does it because it’s Christian; don’t’cha feel the love?). In particular:

That changed last week when the president of the small Christian college on the North Shore, D. Michael Lindsay, joined a group of 14 religious leaders in asking President Obama for an exemption from a planned executive order banning discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. Surprisingly, such discrimination is not explicitly banned now.

The group sent the president a letter in which they tried to frame their request for an exemption as a matter of religious freedom. They claimed that the proposed ban would “come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom.”

So, what actually happened was: “Mayor Kim Driscoll sent a letter to President Lindsay this morning notifying him and his Board of Trustees of the City’s termination of their management contract of Old Town Hall due to the institution’s non-compliance with the City of Salem’s fully LGBT-inclusive Non-Discrimination Ordinance.”

What’s great about this – besides the obvious – is that Glen Beck decided to tell his massive audience about it, and the Salem Mayor’s office got a lot of angry phone calls. Why is that great? Because “Mayor Kimberly Driscoll pledged to donate five dollars to an LGBT youth charity for every angry phone call her office gets from conservatives bent on harassing city employees over the decision.” Ha!

But, on July 17, WND decided to try to remind people that they are being Oppressed by a tiny portion of society: “‘Gay’ Population Smaller than Thought.” This reports on a recently released poll:

Based on 2013 data collected by the government in The National Health Interview Survey, 1.6 percent of adults identify as gay or lesbian and 0.7 percent identify as bisexual. The numbers were lower than earlier approximations, which placed gay and lesbians at closer to 3 percent of the population. More than 96 percent identified as straight, and 1.1 percent did not provide an answer or said they were “something else,” or “I don’t know the answer.”

Personally, I think this under-estimates the population. That’s because there are many people who say they are straight but still “just have sex” with people of the same gender. I have a cousin who worked with an HIV clinic in outreach to that population of “men who have sex with men” but don’t consider themselves “gay.” Similarly, this was a survey conducted by the government. For a group that is actively marginalized and discriminated against, the idea that they are going to be 100% honest and tell the government if they’re gay is ridiculous. This may have been attempted to be corrected for (I haven’t read the analysis methods in detail), but it’s definitely something that must be considered.

For those reasons, at best, I would say this sets a minimum on the population. But let’s say that ~2-3% is accurate. So what? It’s okay to discriminate against 2-3% of the population but not 5%? Or 10%? Where’s the cut-off? Anything under 77% because it’s 77% that’s Christian? FYI, at that same link, only 1.7% of the population of the US is Jewish. Gays outnumber Jews. Hmmmmm…

Finally, today, Monday July 21, we finally have President Obama accomplishing via Executive Order what ENDA has been trying to do for decades but failing to get through Congress: A ban on LGBT discrimination in the federal workforce. As in, any government agency, and anyone who contracts with the government for that particular project, canNOT discriminate based on sexual orientation. AND, he did not include any exception for religion (which would have made it a toothless EO).

WND reported on this in a snippet from NBC News (“Obama Signs Ban on LGBT Discrimination”). People who are less familiar with how the US government works (such as those on WND) may wonder how he can do this. It’s because the Executive branch of government is the one that implements and enforces the laws. While the Legislative makes the laws, it’s the Executive who, well, executes them. While Congress designates what receives funding, the office of the President is the one who distributes them. And unless there is a law against it, he can choose how to do that within the scope of what Congress said. And since even the current Congress wouldn’t be stupid enough to explicitly say that LGBT persons must be discriminated against in the workplace, then Obama can emphasize the opposite.

It also has a huge amount of precedence. For example, this EO is just an amendment: “In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson signed an order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating “against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Obama’s executive order added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories.”

Or, in a completely different example, while Congress approves money for federal medical research, the Executive works within that to appropriate funds. And in 2001, President G.W. Bush issued an EO stating that NO federal money could be used for stem cell research other than already-existing lines.

So, this bit of good news – that is fully within the Executive branch’s power, is what I’ll wrap this particular update post up with.

I don’t think anyone’s ever accused me of not bing cynical. For this ‘un, my cynicism is on high alert: “Rocked! Did God Intervene to Stop Disaster?” The article was posted on May 12 and written by WND’s Joe Kovacs. To quote the article:

A New England pastor says divine intervention saved his church building from being crushed by a massive, rolling boulder unearthed by nearby construction blasting.

“If it rolled another 12 inches, it would have gone right through the building,” said Rick LeClair, pastor at Grace Ministries Church in Saugus, Massachusetts. “This boulder was probably 20 tons.”

“We were standing across the street saying, ‘Uh-oh. There it goes,’” LeClair said. “I was thinking the church was going to get wrecked, but I had this peace about me where it really wasn’t going to get wrecked. And it didn’t.”

LeClair told the station he had a feeling God became directly involved in preventing the stone from rolling any further.

“The Lord just kinda said, ‘That’s enough,’” he said.

I really don’t like these kinds of stories, and I said as much in my “God Saved 15 People at McDonalds, Ignored Thousands Others Currently Dying in Agony” post from Last September.

Wanna know why your god works in mysterious ways? It’s because it’s not predictable, not repeatable, and you rarely get what you ask for so you have to spin it into a win-win scenario.

Meanwhile, why doesn’t WND offer a more “fair and balanced” viewpoint, writing about the millions upon millions of times that people have prayed to their god and nothing happened. That rocks rolled over people or buildings, things fell into sinkholes, and — oh yeah — millions of people killed in genocides for various reasons.

Nah … “prometheus2” put it this way: “The way that rock was moving, and the energy potential of its mass makes it even more stunning that it was stopped dead in its tracks; praise God for this awesome display of his might and compassion.”

Or, just “vernr” who wrote, “We serve an AWESOME God.”

No, you “serve” a figment of peoples’ imaginations that’s petty, cruel, and capricious.

I’ve posted on this blog before about image artifacts and pareidolia, such as, World Net Daily Is a Fan of Pareidolia” which reported on WND’s Joe Kovacs, the executive news editor of WND, writing about an image anomaly that some claimed looked like Jesus in a Google image.

Joe Kovacs is apparently a big fan of these kinds of image anomalies, and now we can add UFOs to the list: “Mystery Lights Spotted Over U.S. Heartland.” The entire article is a credulous reporting of what various people said they saw in the sky.

The reason why I’m talking about this is the comments:

  • rickc — “Holograms , NWO trick or Angels batteling in the heavens. I won’t lose any sleep over it GOD is in control and I belong to him. Jesus is my Lord and savior.”
  • Robert R. Lionshield — “t’s fallen angels that this people are seeing, they(angel) shape-shift into anything that we know and see on the earth. Do NOT BE FOOLED BY DEVIL.”
  • EMIRCITNA — “BOTTOM LINE; I don’t want to hear anything else about “UFO’s” ….until one actually lands and the occupants show themselves!!! ~ (most probably will be a George Soros-funded NWO gimmick!)”
  • gian2012 — “Everybody should know that it’s Bush’s revenge on all those who hate him. Ditto Sarah Palin who helped Bush launch thousands of captured fireflies into the atmosphere. Or it’s a new campaign by Michael Bloomberg so he can blame the NRA for all the tracers being shot into the air. Other than that it’s an atmospheric phenomenon launched by Almighty God against a godless America as a warning to clean up the corruption in this country with it’s Constitution inspired by Divine Providence or dire consequences await. There will be more heavenly signs as time goes by, just wait and see. I’m no crackpot and believe there’s forces out there far more powerful than Obama,Dirty Harry,and Nanny Pelosi, who mock God by laughing at the Constitution of this beautiful country now blighted by the folly of corrupt men and women who are drunk with power for personal gain. Don’t forget, Jesus said, “What profit a man (or woman) should they gain the world but lose their own soul”? Greed is one of the seven deadly sins and boy are we seeing that in the president,the congress,and especially Dirty Harry senator extraordinaire from Nevada trying to throw a guy off his ranch for personal monetary gain. The Almighty has a special room waiting in hell for all because He doesn’t like to be mocked . Go ahead non believers, liberal trolls , throw your potshots at me whereby I’ll survive and you will not. “
  • katch52 — “Think how easy it would be for a government regime to stage these things and use the media to put a scare into the whole country that we’re being invaded by aliens. They’d instruct us all to go to the nearest FEMA camp for shelter and for those who didn’t have the transportation or who just didn’t want to go, they’d make sure we got there. Don’t fall for it!”
  • makeminefreedom — “It’s called PSYOPS or psychological operations. It goes something like this, “I saw a light in the sky. I’m scared. I guess I should give up my rights so the government will protect me.””

I’m not sure much needs to be said at this point. Exposing how these people think is enough.