WorldNetDaily News 09/01/2006
- Wal-Mart joins 'gay' chamber of commerce
Company says it's just another routine business outreach
Posted: August 31, 2006 8:25 p.m. Eastern © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Wal-Mart has confirmed to WorldNetDaily that it has joined a "gay"
chamber of commerce, but describes it as just another routine business
outreach and says other major corporations are doing the same types of
However, conservatives and Christians see it differently, and Tony
Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., already
has launched a citizens protest of the move.
"It is correct that we have a dialogue with the (National Gay and
Lesbian Chamber of Commerce)," Wal-Mart spokesman Bob McAdam told WND.
"This is just what businesses do."
He said it is an effort by the company to reach out to one of its
customer bases, and is being handled similarly to Wal-Mart's work with
Hispanic and African-American chambers of commerce.
A report on an advertising industry site, AdAge, said that Wal-Mart
had not only joined the NGLCC but also has hired a "gay-marketing"
shop and started discussions about extending domestic-partner benefits
Why did Wal-Mart go 'gay'?
Posted: September 1, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
I have long been a huge fan of the Sam Walton family and the
tremendous success story they made for themselves in corporate
America. Not a huge fan of their clothing lines, but for tools,
electronics, camping gear and other life essentials, well, suffice it
to say I've spent my share of dollars on everything from batteries to gum.
I've known numbers of people who worked for Wal-Mart, and they've
always confided that it is an amazing company by way of internal
promotion. Someone can start out as a stock boy and within two years
become a store manager.
There is something simple, familiar, inexpensive and friendly at a
Wal-Mart. During college basketball days when the team would be on the
road, we never felt far from home if we could load up on CDs,
Slim-Jims (the beef snack, not automobile door openers) and Mountain
Dew, and zip through the smiley face check-out lane.
On nearly every occasion I've visited a Wal-Mart, I've nearly always
seen entire families shopping together of every racial and ethnic
background you could imagine. Newer than Sears, less expensive than
Target, much more hip than K-Mart, there quite possibly couldn't be a
more family-friendly vendor in all of America.
Until this week ...
Wal-Mart stores have now signed on to an agreement with the "National
Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce."
Leaving me to ask the question: WHY?
Wal-Mart never excluded anyone from being employed there based on
their sexual preference. To them, and more importantly to the
consumer, it didn't matter. Homosexuals got hired, fired, paid and
promoted in the exact same fashion everyone else did. In fact, to be
honest, unless the employee came in bragging about his conquests from
the night before, the subject never came up.
And that's how it should be. It's not my business if you're shacking
up with your girlfriend but you don't have the chutzpah to marry her.
It's God's business, but not mine. If you're openly cheating on your
married spouse, you are the one who will have to pay the price for
that information being public. But then again, who would benefit if
you did? Whatever your appetite in sexual desire men, women, pets or
blow-up dolls in a civilized society, it should never be in good
taste to discuss it publicly.
So, why is Wal-Mart now spending resources in time, attention and
money to promote same-gender sexual behavior?
Why will a Wal-Mart vice president now sit on the NGLCC task force?
Why will Wal-Mart spend monetary resources to help fund conferences
that promote same-gender sexual behavior? Would they do the same for
adulterers? Pedophiles? Men who like sheep?
Why will Wal-Mart go out of its way to purchase products from
businesses that profit from same-gender sexual behavior?
And why did they have to change their policy on the extension of
benefits for married employees to now include same-sex domestic
partners? Will they also extend the benefits to opposite-sex domestic
partners? Why are they discriminating against heterosexuals?
Admittedly, I haven't been in a Wal-Mart in about three years. New
York City seems to have a chip on its shoulder about them and won't
seem to let them come within arm's reach of Manhattan which brings
about Wal-Mart's newest challenge.
In turning their back on the Red State shopper who disapproves of
these changes, Wal-Mart has made a terrible business decision.
I know it wasn't their idea. But in not fighting it, by succumbing to
the threats of the community that likes to identify itself based on
what type of sex they have in the bedroom, Wal-Mart has taken a turn
in an incredibly stupid direction.
This was never about Wal-Mart really needing to become more tolerant
they didn't. But a handful of hateful activists put a bull's-eye on
the retailer that scared it.
Wal-Mart should be more afraid of losing its core buyer than catering
to the extremists among us.
So let's remind them.
Print out this flyer, print out dozens. Hand them out at church, to
your neighbors and to the customer service desk of your local
Wal-Mart. Let them know in all kindness that you don't see any
reason why the proud tradition of Sam Walton a truly great American
should needlessly be entangled with ugly radical, sexual activism.
Look, we all lose our way sometimes, and that's when it's important
for our friends to step up, look us in the eye and tell us the truth
even if it hurts.
And for America, this one does.
Kevin McCullough's first hardback title, "The MuscleHead Revolution,"
is now available. Kevin is heard daily in New York City, Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and New Jersey on WMCA 570/970
from 2-5 p.m., and he blogs at muscleheadrevolution.com.
Critic: Americans in danger of 'slavery'
Multiple superhighway plans, illegal immigration could destroy Republic
Posted: August 31, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Multiple NAFTA-related superhighways could slice the United States
into economic and social regions, facilitate crime including drug
trafficking and illegal immigration and shift huge amounts of money to
the rich, critics of the paving plans have told WorldNetDaily.
One leader even likens the prospects to "slavery" for the American
people, because of the loss of control they would experience.
"I don't have time to mince words about this. This is subjugation,"
William Gheen, a spokesman for Americans for Legal Immigration, told
Illegal alien charged in vehicular homicide
Alcohol suspected in crash that killed 18-year-old
Posted: August 31, 2006 9:45 a.m. Eastern © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Another illegal alien, suspected of being intoxicated, has been
charged with vehicular homicide in the death of an 18-year-old
Luis Oscar Garcia, 24, a Mexican who had been living in the U.S.
without a green card for three years, was ordered held without bail
this week on the vehicular homicide charge as well as driving under
The victim in the crash was James F. Rogers Jr. of North Jackson, Tenn.
A preliminary hearing is set for Sept. 7, and it is likely Garcia, who
speaks little English, will use a court-appointed attorney for his
According to the Jackson Sun, Garcia's 1995 Chevy S-10 pickup ran a
red light while traveling north on the U.S. 45 Bypass at Oil Well Road
about 2 a.m. Saturday. He slammed into the '95 Honda Civic that Rogers
was driving westbound on Oil Well.
Police said Garcia had a strong odor of alcohol on his person and that
his pants were soaked with a liquid that indicated the presence of
alcohol. There also were two beer bottles, one partially filled, in
the truck at the time of the accident, police said.
In addition to the vehicular homicide and DUI charges, Garcia faces
counts of driving without a license, registration or proof of
insurance. When police did a check on his license plate, it did not
come back under his name, the report said.
Mexican truckers to hit U.S. roadways next year
Transportation secretary vows to release 1-year, NAFTA pilot plan by
Posted: September 1, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON Transportation Secretary Maria Cino promises to release
plans within months for a one-year, NAFTA pilot program permitting
Mexican truckers beyond the limited commercial zone to which they are
The program will likely involve about 100 Mexican trucking companies,
the Department of Transportation says.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA the borders
were to open partially to truckers from both countries in 1995. Full
access was promised by 2000. Because of the restrictions on Mexican
trucks, the Mexican government has imposed limits on U.S. truckers.
The U.S. restrictions were placed by the Clinton administration in
response to demands from the Teamsters union, which said Mexican
trucks posed safety and environmental risks. Currently, the U.S.
permits Mexican truckers only in commercial zones close to the border
that extend no further than 20 miles from Mexico.
While the American Trucking Association supports opening the border,
other unions have joined in opposition with the Teamsters. The
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association came out this month in
opposition to any Mexican truck pilot program.
Todd Spencer, the association's executive vice president, said the
program would jeopardize safety on U.S. roads and would lead to an
influx of cheap Mexican labor.
"A move by the U.S. Department of Transportation to open U.S. roadways
to Mexican trucks puts the interest of foreign trade and cheap labor
ahead of everything else, including highway safety, homeland security
and the well being of hardworking Americans," Spencer said.
In a letter to the Interstate Trade Commission, Spencer wrote: "The
net effect of admission of Mexican trucks into the U.S. marketplace
would undoubtedly be negative. The supposed benefits to consumers from
speculative reductions in shipping rates would be offset by the
societal costs that are difficult to measure, but are easy to identify."
Spencer told the commission that Mexican trucks are not up to U.S.
safety standards, and if U.S. drivers earn less as a result of labor
competition, they would have less money to invest in vehicle
maintenance leading to even more less safe trucks.
The Teamsters have led opposition to the plan, saying the so-called
"NAFTA superhighway," a north-south interstate trade corridor linking
Mexico, Canada and the U.S., would mean U.S. truckers replaced by
Mexicans, more unsafe rigs on American roads and more drivers relying
on drugs for their long hauls.
The August issue of Teamster magazine features a cover story on the
plan for an enlarged I-35 that will reach north from the drug capital
border town of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, 1,600 miles to Canada through San
Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis and Duluth, while
I-69 originating at the same crossing will shoot north to Michigan and
across the Canadian border.
Public proposals for the superhighway call for each corridor to be
1,200 feet wide with six lanes devoted to cars, four to trucks, with a
rail line and utilities in the middle. Most of the goods will come
from new Mexican ports being built on the Pacific Coast ports being
run by Chinese state-controlled shipping companies.
The superhighway no one is funding
Posted: September 1, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Another key congressman Rep. Roy Blunt, majority whip in the House
of Representatives is telling his constituents the federal
government has nothing to do with the idea of building the "NAFTA
This is at least the third Republican member of Congress either
playing dumb or deliberately deceiving American taxpayers by claiming
no federal dollars have flowed into the project.
In a form letter being sent by Blunt now to the many inquiries he and
other members of Congress are getting about the project in the wake of
a series of WND stories, Blunt makes the following statement: "The
maps of a NAFTA superhighway were produced by a group called the North
American SuperCorridor Coalition. This group is not a government
agency. It is not associated with, its contents are not sanctioned by,
and it receives no funding from the United States Congress, the
Department of Transportation or any other government agency."
On and on it goes. We have official after official denying the U.S.
government's well-documented role in financing the NAFTA superhighway
a project mandated by the trade agreement passed by Congress. What
will they be denying next? That Social Security is going broke? Oh,
yeah, I guess they will.
Anyway, Blunt joins Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, who ridiculed the idea that there are
plans to build the NAFTA superhighway and also affirmed in no
uncertain terms that Congress has authorized no money for the project.
Then there was Rep. Jim Oberstar, R-Minn., who claimed through an
aide, "There are no earmarks for a superhighway like that."
Likewise, Rep. Jim Ryun, R-Kan., has posted on his re-election
campaign website a letter written by the former executive director of
NASCO, the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, claiming there are
no plans for building the superhighway and belittling WND for
reporting on the subject.
Let's set the record straight. Unless NASCO is lying on its own
website, the federal government has allocated $2.25 million directly
to NASCO "for the development of a technology integration and tracking
In explaining what this means, NASCO says: "The project will have a
team approach using members of NASCO as the primary participants in
the project, to the extent possible. NASCO believes the deployment of
a modern information system will reduce the cost, improve the
efficiency, reduce trade-related congestion, and enhance security of
cross-border and corridor information, trade and traffic."
Is that clear? Sounds like our money is being well-spent. And it
doesn't sound like it has anything to do with a NAFTA superhighway,
In addition, NASCO boasts of the creation of a NASCO Caucus within
Congress. It talks of "coordinating the efforts of local, state and
federal agencies and the private sector to integrate and secure a
multimodal transportation system along the existing 'NASCO Corridor.'"
Though NASCO has begun insisting on its website that "there are no
plans to build a new NAFTA superhighway," this statement is
disingenuous to say the least. What the group means, when pressed, is
that the superhighway it envisions will be built upon an existing
series of highways. Thus, "new" is the critical word that keeps
members' pants from catching fire.
As to the claims by members of Congress that no federal money is being
allocated to this project and that the agency has no connection to
Congress, again, just look at what NASCO says:
* NASCO is "known as the strongest International Trade Corridor
Coalition on Capitol Hill."
* "Lobbying efforts have helped secure more than $150 million in
corridor transportation project funding to date."
* NASCO "helped gain more than $79 million in Corridor projects in
FY03 through the National Corridor Planning and Development Program,
ITS Program, Interstate Maintenance Program and the Discretionary
* NASCO "successfully lobbied to take the Highway Trust fund
'off-budget,' which resulted in increased transportation formula
funding for NASCO's corridor states." (Maybe that's why these members
of Congress are having a hard time finding the money it's "off-budget.")
* NASCO was "awarded a seat on the North American International
Trade Corridor DOT (Department of Transportation) Steering Committee
to oversee the development of the federally funded ITS/CVO study along
And, last but not least, please note this: "Since 1999, the federal
government has directed more than $234 million in project funding
towards the NASCO Corridor."
My questions: Who's lying? And why?
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally
syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate.
Plain lies, war lies and partisanship
Posted: August 31, 2006 9:00 p.m. Eastern
Democrats are outraged over President Bush's new series of national
security speeches. There he goes again, politicizing the war.
The Democratic leadership obviously believes the president should
muzzle himself so close to the November elections because what is
important for national security might also help Republicans, and that
must be avoided at all costs.
Democrats are furious over Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's speech to the
American Legion this week, in which he compared today's appeasers to
those of the World War II era and warned that we mustn't turn a blind
eye to today's terrorists like many did to yesterday's Nazis.
Such talk is off-limits because it offends the appeasers, who, by the
way, deny they're appeasers, insisting they're "tough and smart"
scavengers on the hunt for the only terrorist on the planet, Osama bin
Laden. His capture or death, they imply, will shut down terrorism in
its tracks like a redheaded stepchild and put an end to this reckless,
recreational neoconservative global gallivanting.
So, let's cease further discussion of the most important issue of the
day. Let's put our history books back on the shelves and consign
ourselves to repeat the painful and costly mistake of ignoring the
relentless march of evil in the world.
In fact, Democrats are the ones politicizing the war and who view it
exclusively through a partisan prism. When they stop hyperventilating,
they might consider that it is the commander in chief's duty to rally
popular support for the troops and their mission. Of course, the
president's task wouldn't be nearly so urgent if Democrats hadn't been
undermining the war effort in Iraq almost since it began with a steady
stream of disinformation focusing on the false charge that he lied us
They explain their sudden affinity for the truth in contrast to
their cynically dismissive attitude toward it during the Clinton years
as a matter of the singular importance of the war. While lying per
se isn't particularly wrong under their relativist standards and
lying about adulterous relations is even virtuous to protect one's
family lying about war, at least by a Republican president, is so
evil it pretty much drives them to the obnoxious Christian state of
This distinction is interesting given their own pattern of deceit
concerning all aspects of the war. Let's review, shall we?
* They said Bush attacked Iraq "unilaterally" when he built a
coalition of over 30 nations, including Great Britain, and tried hard
to persuade the rest of Old Europe to join. To their discredit, they
refused. A unilateralist wouldn't have bothered.
* They deny Iraq is part of the war on terror never mind that
terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine
clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations,
like Saddam's Iraq.
* They claim Bush asserted a connection between Saddam and 9/11
when he explicitly said otherwise. He said Saddam had close ties to
terrorists, including al-Qaida and the Taliban, which is undeniably
true and which Democrats also persist in falsely denying. Indeed, Iraq
was on Clinton's watch list of terrorist nations.
* They say Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat" when he called it
a "great and gathering threat." The Bush Doctrine called for attacking
threatening nations before they could become an imminent threat, when
it would be too late. But some anti-war Democrats, like Jay
Rockefeller, did call Iraq an "imminent threat."
* They say Bush's sole reason to attack Iraq was its WMD. In fact,
David Horowitz notes there were 23 "whereas" clauses in the Iraq War
resolution, only two of which mentioned WMD and 12 of which concerned
Saddam's violations of U.N. resolutions.
* They say they were duped into voting for the resolution by
administration hype on WMD. But the intelligence Congress received in
the National Intelligence Estimate was much less alarmist and more
nuanced than the intelligence the president received in the
Presidential Daily Briefings. But, hey, they had to give their
anti-war base some excuse.
* They say we had Osama surrounded in Tora Bora and let him go,
outsourcing the job of capturing him to Afghan warlords so we could
pursue our quixotic junket in Iraq. Gen. Tommy Franks put the lie to
all of this malicious nonsense.
* On the hyped Wilson/Plame nonscandal don't get me started.
* Most unforgivably, they've lied in painting President Bush as a
liar on Iraqi WMD.
* There's much more like their simultaneous condemnation and
advocacy of pre-emptive strikes but no space left.
Next time you hear Democrats say they abhor lies "about war," remember
a few of these gems.
David Limbaugh is a best-selling author and attorney.