Drew Zahn's Sept. 12 WorldNetDaily article is ostensibly a review of the movie "Resident Evil: Afterlife," but much of it is a long, misleading digression into "social Darwinism":
Obviously, moviegoers that don't want to see wanton bloodshed, violence and gore, however, aren't going to want to see "Afterlife."
Furthermore, by digging just a little deeper, the film merits another word of caution: "Resident Evil," in the end, is aptly named, for beneath the video game violence and comic book storyline, the film pushes forward an evil that has quietly taken up residence in Western Civilization and rotted it from within, an evil idea sometimes called "social Darwinism."
Prior to the late 1800s, when the West abandoned the beginning of wisdom to embrace every form of foolishness (Psalms 111:10), its prevailing philosophy still embraced biblical values. Humans were considered made in the image of God, stamped therefore with an inherent value as the handiwork of a magnificent Creator. The highest value driving these Imago Deis was the expression of the essence of that Creator through relationship, the expression of love (1 John 4:8).
But when Charles Darwin's devotees eliminated the Creator from the equation, the eventual result was the elimination of the innate, God-given value of individuals.
Furthermore, the value of reflecting the Creator's love was replaced with a new set of universal laws, among them natural selection and "survival of the fittest." When applied to humanity in what was derided as "social Darwinism," individuals were replaced by valueless hordes striving to gain supremacy over others – the opposite of love – in a battle for limited resources. Only the strong nations, the strong companies, the strong people survive. The weak are left behind. And somehow, this was deemed not only the law of the universe, but in some cases, a better way to organize humanity.
Here we are now, several decades removed from the heyday of such thought, when social Darwinism fueled the abuses of the Industrial Revolution and spawned the concept of eugenics and Adolf Hitler's "superior race." After witnessing the brutality of the Nazis' "final solution," the emerging postmodern world began to rethink social Darwinism.
But that doesn't mean we're free of it.
Case in point, the underlying themes in "Resident Evil: Afterlife."
The zombie film presents humanity as reduced by plague to a faceless mob of undead animals groaning after a limited food supply. They have no value, except as blood-stained splatters for the remaining survivors of the plague.
As for those that escaped the plague, only a few have managed to climb out of this struggle for survival: an elite corporation, genetically enhanced warriors and a lucky band that has outsmarted the horde around them. Just as social Darwinism favored cutthroat businesses and the most "evolved" species, "Afterlife" gives us one, lone business running the world and duking it out with heroes of superior genes and wits.
Voila! Social Darwinism's ultimate end, a showdown on who is the fittest to survive.
Indeed, Western Civilization can't be allowed to go back to social Darwinism. We've seen its consequences, its "final solution."
But return to it we do, in part because the West's prevailing philosophy still denies the truths of God and demands that Darwin holds the keys to the universe. Until we repent and seek real wisdom, we'll likely return to social Darwinism again and again, even as a dog returns to its vomit (2 Peter 2:20-22).
Zahn, as his WND employer has done before, is falsely conflating Darwin's theory of evolution with so-called social Darwinism, a survival-of-the-fittest idea that predates Darwin. That's just a lazy attack on evolution -- and makes for a sucky movie review.
MRC Non-Disclosure Watch Topic: Media Research Center
A Sept. 12 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham highlighting the response of conservative moneybags David and Charles Koch to a New Yorker profile of the brothers and their prolifigate funding of conservative causes fails to mention (as we've noted) that Graham's employer, the Media Research Center, has accepted nearly $10,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Koch Family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.
WND's Richardson: Let Jesus Burn the Quran! Topic: WorldNetDaily
Nevertheless, I also want to state that I am utterly opposed to the planned burning of Qurans.
The answer is because this job belongs to Jesus alone. While Muslims believe that Jesus will return as a Muslim to destroy Christianity, I believe that he will return as a Jew to destroy Islam.
But as much as I would like to rid the earth of this soul-destroying book myself, this job has not been given to me or any other Christian. This job belongs to Jesus. Only He is worthy. And as such, the central hope and expectation of every prophet and apostle throughout the Bible is to eagerly await the "Day of the Lord," when the Messiah will return to execute vengeance, deliver justice and rid the world of all evil.
When the Messiah returns, He will rid the world not only of the Quran but also the collections of Haddith (Islam's other demonic source of sacred authority), Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (an equally anti-Semitic and racist book which is presently a best-seller in the moderate Islamic nation of Turkey), or Barack Obama's favorite textbooks: Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto," and Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals." All of these books will be destroyed and thrown into the fire. And I'm looking forward to it.
Sheppard Baselessly Portrays Gingrich As Statesman Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard declares in a Sept. 11 NewsBusters post that that he can't understand why a writer at Foreign Policy magazine would use Newt Gingrich's name in the same sentence as wannabe Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones as examples of the "Talibanization" of America:
So, as far as this author is concerned, the highly-esteemed former Speaker of the House is the same as a nutty Pastor in Florida that up until a few weeks ago almost nobody in America ever heard of.
Sheppard seems curiously incurious as to why the writer would make such a comparison. Why, it certainly couldn't be Gingrich's statement that "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Or his likening of the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero to the Nazis "a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington" and "the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor." And it certainly couldn't be Gingrich's statement that President Obama is engaging in "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior."
Why, as far as Sheppard is concerned, those are incredibly statesmanlike words that only a "highly-esteemed former Speaker of the House" could make.
Sheppard engages in fantasies elsewhere in the post, asserting that "this whole idea of Islamophobia is a fiction created by America's press that's been negligently presented as a mainstream fear rather than a fringe sentiment in a dishonest attempt to change the public's view of the Ground Zero mosque." His evidence for this is a previous post he wrote making the same claim without any evidence.
That's right -- his evidence that there's no Islamophobia is that he said it before, so it must be true. Sad, isn't it?
Farah Denies His Anti-Muslim Screed Is An Anti-Muslim Screed Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah writes in his Sept. 11 WorldNetDaily column:
The mosque at Ground Zero represents the tip of the iceberg in terms of a long-term threat to the security of this nation. New mosques are springing up all over America – most of them funded by foreign money and controlled by the hideous ideology that form the basis for the attack of 9/11.
We're all still screened at airports to prevent yesterday's attack – often by Muslims wearing burkas!
Islam is now taught as a religion of peace in our schools, despite 1,300 years of history to the contrary.
Our media are full of accounts of an imaginary bigotry called Islamophobia.
When Muslims go on the rampage in mass-murder attacks like the one at Fort Hood, members of the media class wring their hands about reporting their names and government officials deny they are examples of terrorism despite the fact that they share the same motivation as the 9/11 hijackers.
Yet, Farah wants to believe he doesn't hate Muslims:
There will be those who try to portray this column as an anti-Muslim screed. It is not. I do not condemn all Muslims. In fact, I have sympathy and compassion for those trapped in their 7th century worldview. I do, however, have a beef with all who subscribe to Saudi-style Shariah law. Muslims in the U.S., who subscribe to Shariah law, have a duty and obligation to place that ideology ahead of any allegiance they might have to the U.S. Constitution. That effectively makes them unworthy of U.S. citizenship.
But, then again, we have a president who wipes his feet contemptuously on the Constitution. So I don't expect even a new class of leadership in Congress to require any loyalty test for new citizens.
Riiiight. Farah then proves himself wrong again, declaring that Islam isn't a real religion and they should all covert to Christianity:
It's time for American Christians to realize what a fertile missions field we have right here in the United States with an expanding Muslim population and many new gathering places they are building.
If they have the religious freedom to build these mosques all over America, we have the Christian duty to evangelize them, to persuade them they are worshipping a false god and revering a false prophet – one who, by the way, has no record of making even one prophecy!
Since we're all learning more about Islam every day, let's put that knowledge to good use. Let's all vow to make new Muslim friends – and bring them to the saving grace of the one true God of the universe.
Thanks, Joe, for making us laugh with your pathetic attempt to tell your readers not to trust their own eyes.
Newsmax Misrepresents Obama's Statement on 'Ground Zero Mosque' Topic: Newsmax
In a Sept. 10 Newsmax article, David Patten suggested that President Obama "specifically addressed the wisdom of placing a 15-story, $100 million community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero."
But he didn't. As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent points out, Obama merely once again reiterated the legal right for the project to proceed. While Obama was asked about the wisdom of locating it there, Obama did not specifically answer that question.
Patten's article was little more than a way to attack Obama by invoking Debra Burlingame, "he sister of an American Airlines pilot who died in the 9/11 attacks," who smeared Obama as, in Patten's words, "more sensitive to Muslim sensibilities than to those of people in the United States." Patten made no apparent attempt to contact any other source to react to Obama's statement.
Feel the Hate from WND's Robert Ringer Topic: WorldNetDaily
Robert Ringer brings the Obama derangement we all know and love in full force in his Sept. 10 WorldNetDaily column, in which he is oh-so-cleverly unable to use Obama's name, instead calling him "the presidential imposter" (and smears Michelle Obama as "Angela Davis II"):
On Labor Day, I engaged in the most dangerous of all activities, jumping from channel to channel with the remote. Suddenly, there he was, the presidential imposter, or "PI". Forget the fact that the presidential election was almost two years ago – he was giving yet another campaign speech, this time in Milwaukee!
My self-discipline momentarily abandoning me, I got sucked into watching the PI for five minutes … then 10 … then 15 … until I finally became too nauseous to continue. In 15 minutes of nonstop lies, hollow rhetoric, whining, smart-aleck barbs and chest-puffing, the PI turned on his best street-thug accent and delivered a rousing tirade against villains of the common man: George Bush, "fat cats on Wall Street," the minority Republicans in Congress and a variety of other straw men.
At one point, he shrieked, "We didn't become the most prosperous country in the world by supporting greed and recklessness." No mention of the fact that his "stimulus package" has failed to lower the unemployment rate to 8 percent as promised. No mention of the fact that he has quadrupled the evil George Bush's deficit. No mention of the fact that spouse Angela Davis II spent $500,000 vacationing in Spain for a few days. No mention of anything substantive.
Nothing substantive? Sounds like Ringer is talking about himself. Anyway, the hatefest continues:
The PI even had the audacity to say that he's going to "restore the American dream." Whoa! Hold on there, junior. Now you're crossing into my territory. I'll tell you how to restore the American dream – and it's not by collapsing the economy and establishing a totalitarian regime in Washington.
To restore the American dream, all redistribution-of-wealth functions of government need to be phased out along with most taxes. Every individual should be given the opportunity to succeed or fail according to his own abilities and efforts – without interference from government.
Well, guess what? Straightening out the economy can be done with a minimum investment of time and effort. Simply repeal health care "reform," financial "reform" and virtually everything else that the PI and his comrades have forced into law by subverting the Constitution, cut personal taxes dramatically, eliminate both corporate and capital gains taxes, start dismantling the EPA, shut down the transfer-of-wealth programs euphemistically referred to as General Motors and Chrysler … for starters.
In other words, listen to the tea-partiers message: Government, get off our backs! Don't do anything to "stimulate" the economy and create jobs. Just get out of the way and remove job-killing taxes and regulations. We'll handle the rest, thank you.
That will leave Congress time to focus on investigating, bringing to trial, and, hopefully, convicting members of the gangster government that has been raping and pillaging the American public at a rapidly accelerating rate over the past two years. Sorry, but criminals are not entitled to "retire with dignity."
Enough said. As Robert Shaw put it in "The Sting," "Ya folla?"
Feel the pure, uncut vitriol, people! Ringer's in da house!
NewsBusters Defends Quran-Burning Pastor Again Topic: NewsBusters
Earlier this week, as we noted, NewsBusters ran to the defense of Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones after a CNN anchor was deemed to be overly rude to him. NewsBusters defends Jones' honor in a Sept. 10 post by Matt Hadro:
In what had to be the ultimate in condescension and elitism, MSNBC's "Morning Joe" brought Pastor Terry Jones on the show merely to lecture him on Christianity, cutting him off before he could even respond. Co-host Mika Brzezinski explained to him "we don't really need to hear anything else, so thanks."
Excuse us, but why shouldn't one be condescending toward someone who wants to perform an act that has been universally condemned (even elsewhere at NewsBusters)? What has Jones done to earn anybody's respect -- or, more to the point, Hadro's respect? Perhaps he can explain.
MRC's Gainor Exempts Conservatives From Blame for Post-9/11 Divisions Topic: Media Research Center
In his Sept. 8 column, the Media Research Center's Dan Gainor is quick to throw around blame for post-9/11 divisions -- but is careful not to blame conservatives. He writes:
Soon after fire fighters raised a flag in the ruins of New York, the fingerpointing began. George Bush was to blame, though he only recently had taken office. America was to blame because of its longstanding friendship with Israel. Everyone was to blame it seemed, except the monsters driven by hate to harm the innocent.
Gainor seems to have forgotten that conservatives were not interested in only blaming the terrorists. As we documented at the time, thebodies of the victims weren't even cold yet before WorldNetDaily and Newsmax were blaming Bill Clinton's supposed national security lapses for the attacks.
Gainor also goes after conspiracy theorists, lamenting that "the 9/11 truther industry" has "spread like the plague it is." Gainor overlooks the fact that the organization condones conspiracy theories when it suits their political agenda -- it has done little to counter the fallacious notion that President Obama is a Muslim or not eligible to be president, the promotion of which is raison d'etre for such right-wingers as WorldNetDaily.
Gainor then sent after Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria for claiming the U.S. overreacted after 9/11: "Did we overreact after Pearl Harbor? Perhaps America should have tried to find peace with Imperial Japan instead of fighting for freedom." That's a straw man, of course; most people would consider the internment of Japanese-Americans an overreaction. And we don't recall Gainor or his fellow MRC employees expressing any alarm over the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, despite its apparent contrvention of existing law.
Gainor concludes: "That’s the kind of 20-20 hindsight easy for those in the media who think themselves so above the pain and anguish that they remove flags and patriotism from their broadcasts. This year, journalists will once again try to understand the lingering wound that is 9/11. And once again they will fail."
Apparently Gainor is so pained and anguished by 9/11 that he's stuck in projection mode, unable to see fault with anything he or his fellow conservatives have done and eager to blame everyone else for dividing America.
Posted by Terry K.
at 10:15 AM EDT
Updated: Saturday, September 11, 2010 10:38 AM EDT
Tea Party Founder Swings At Liberals, Misses Topic: WorldNetDaily
Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, writes in a Sept. 10 WorldNetDaily column:
The left frequently complains that conservative Christians want to keep women barefoot and pregnant, without rights. They want to oppress the rights of other religious minorities and kill homosexuals.
There is not a "Christian" country on the earth that does that. While liberals shriek about conservative Christians, they turn a blind eye to the Islamists, who do those exact things in numerous countries around the world.
Phillips conveniently forgets about two conservative Christians who very much want to kill homosexuals, as evidenced by their support for a proposed law in Uganda that would permit the execution of people for being gay: Cliff Kincaid and WND's very own Molotov Mitchell. Further, that law was inspired and championed by other far-right American Christian conservatives such as Scott Lively.
And we only need to see the right-wing-generated attacks on the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero to prove wrong Phillips' contention that conservative Christians don't want to "oppress the rights of other religious minorities."
AIM Column Condones Quran-Burning Topic: Accuracy in Media
We forgot to include this in our previous item on the ConWeb's reaction to Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones. Accuracy in Media, like other ConWeb outlets, has condoned the burning by way of a Sept. 8 column by "editors of Family Security Matters."
Responding to Obama administration criticism of the burning, the "editors" sneer: "It is strange to hear a member of this administration declare an action to be un-American, considering the manner in which this administration has acted recently."
The sneering -- and condoning -- continue:
An administration that has argued that a mosque should be allowed near Ground Zero, despite widespread opposition from American citizens, does test credibility when its leading members loudly condemn a pastor’s freedom of expression. A general does not sound like a military leader if he suggests that a conflict will worsen if a few people burn Korans. Due to restrictive ROE guidelines, the military in Afghanistan is still compelled to act like a team of social workers rather than as a war-winning team.
Pastor Terry Jones is doing what he thinks is appropriate. It would be unrealistic to suggest that there will be no reactions in the Muslim world. It is to be expected that there will be violence, and probably deaths. However, the hysteria on the part of the establishment in reaction to this upcoming event shows how much they apparently fear the volatility of Islamic extremists.
The 'editors" conclude with more acceptance (and more sneering):
In America the current administration’s apparent love affair with Islam, including Islamism (judging by the Islamist representatives invited to iftar dinners) has alienated many Americans.
The affair of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville is just a reaction to the current situation. It is rare for anyone in the administration to dare to take time to praise Christianity or Judaism, yet Islam – which is still a minority religion in America – is on the front pages ad nauseam, and is constantly being engaged with and apparently promoted by politicians who should be upholding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Such apparent bias towards a religion that is alien to, and (in its strictest form) even antithetical to the American Way of Life, is bound to create a backlash. The Ground Zero Mosque has heightened the sensitivities surrounding 9/11, and a sense that the administration has “sided with the enemy,” with that enemy being Islamism.
Pastor Terry Jones is preparing to do something that is perhaps unwise, and is certainly going to offend many Muslims, including the vast majority of Muslims who try to live their lives as good citizens. But Pastor Jones is resolute, and his bravery can be respected. Now the media has become involved, he could become a target.
Burning Korans, or burning any book, is genuinely distasteful. But if Muslims have the freedom to worship in their mosques in America, and are supported in this by the administration, then Christians who choose to burn books must also be allowed to carry out their freedom of expression. No laws are broken, and no-one is physically hurt.
If the only reasons to argue against this event in Florida are that such actions will invoke violence, then what does that say about the nature of Islam? And if an administration responds cooperatively to fears of threats and intimidation by extremists, what does that say about the nature of the West today?
AIM insists that "Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff," but there is no evidence that columns are posted on the AIM website without an AIM employee explicitly approving such posting -- and, therefore, providing at least tacit approval of the contents of those columns.
MRC's Baker Offended Amanpour Won't Falsely Smear Rauf Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Baker uses a September 8 NewsBusters post to attack ABC's Christiane Amanpour for allegedly serving as a "public relations agent" to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf by spending "several hours" with him for an interview. Baker claimed that during the interview, Rauf "warned, as he did on Wednesday's Larry King Live, that if he doesn't get his way Muslims will murder Americans." Baker added: "Amanpour, however, didn't describe that as a protection racket or suggest he's employing blackmail."
That might be a valid concern if that's what Rauf is doing -- but it isn't. Baker is merely parroting the right-wing line that Rauf is threatening America with terrorist attacks if he's not able to build the Park51 Islamic center, and ignoring the fact that officials such as Gen. David Petraeus have said pretty much the same thing as Rauf regarding the national security implications of anti-Muslim protests.
In effect, what Baker is demanding is that Amanpour tell a lie by twisting Rauf's words to conform to Baker's political agenda.
The birther obsessives at WorldNetDaily have issued a new downloadable “Obama eligibility primer” (you have to give up your email address to WND to receive a copy) that it hyperbolically claims “could sink Obama’s presidency.” In fact, the report is yet another rehashing of many of the factually dubious claims WND has been making since it latched onto the birther issue two years ago.
WND repeats the discredited claim that “On Oct. 16, 2008, Obama’s step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, famously claimed in a telephone interview with an American religious leader she had been present at Obama’s birth at a hospital in Mombasa. Sarah Obama speaks Luo, not English.” WND goes on to claim that “Other Luo speakers who have listened to the tape, however, including a member of the Kenyan government, say she insisted twice that she had been present at his birth in Kenya.” This is an apparent reference to a WND article by Jerome Corsi citing anonymous “members of Sarah Hussein Obama's Luo tribe” making that claim. Corsi is notexactly a reliable source, having pushed his own birtherconspiracies, so anything he has to say on the issue is suspect.
Noting that in 1981 “Obama traveled to Pakistan during a period when it was difficult for U.S. citizens to enter that country,” WND claims that “Obama would have needed a passport to travel to Pakistan, and apparently the passport he used was not American.” But since The New York Times and the State Department were offering advice at the time on how Americans could obtain the proper papers for entry into Pakistan, it likely was not as “difficult” as WND suggests.
WND goes on to suggest that Obama, while a student at Occidental College, “received scholarship funds set aside for foreign students.” As Snopes.com details, this idea is based on a hoax.
WND also highlights how “[c]omputer graphics expert Dr. Ron Polarik (an assumed name) contends the COLB is not a record of Obama’s birth at all, but an outright forgery” -- never mind that FactCheck.org points out that it has “seen, touched, examined and photographed” the certificate, concluding that “[c]laims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false.”
WND even goes so far to promote the idea that because “[n]umerous African newspapers have described him as Kenyan-born” and “[h]is wife, Michelle Obama, has twice implied publicly that he is a native of Kenya,” it’s sufficient reason to question where Obama was born. WND tries to immediately downplay this, calling such statements “probably the least compelling reasons to doubt Obama’s eligibility,” but then insists “they have become prominent parts of the Obama eligibility lore.” Indeed, WND has endeavored to make that so -- nearly six pages of its 32-page pamphlet are devoted to recounting these statements.
WND has long desperately promoted any claim, no matter how specious or discredited, to promote the idea that Obama is not a real American. The most notorious example of this is the “Kenyan birth certificate” WND promoted without bothering to verify its authenticity first, before finally conceding the certificate was “probably not authentic.”
A real “eligibility primer” would have included all relevant facts, including the exculpatory ones -- but the full truth is something WND has shown little interest in reporting.
ConWeb All Over the Map on Quran-Burning Pastor Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb just can't seem to figure out a consistent stand on Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones. It seems that every attempt to criticize it is countered with an instance of condoning it.
CNSNews.com: A Sept. 7 article by Nicholas Ballasy that was heavy on condemnation of Jones was followed by a Sept. 9 article by Patrick Goodenough detailing how the Quran had been burned throughout history, starting with an early caliph who ordered all rival versions burned -- thus seeming to offer tacit approval for Jones' burning, despite concluding with a pair of Christian ministers who oppose book-burning.
WorldNetDaily: As we noted, WND began the week with Aaron Klein's softball interview of Jones. It gre more conflicted from there:
An audio interview with anti-Islam activist Brigitte Gabriel opposing the burning.
A column by Ann Coulter calling the burning "a nasty thing to do," like building a mosque near Ground Zero. (Will this be the straw that finally causes WND to drop her column?)
A column by Craige McMillan condoning it, stating that "America's self-imagined elites should chill out about the Quran burning" and "let the god of Islam contend for himself."
NewsBusters: It also started by defending Jones, feeling sympathy for him under pointed CNN questioning. Then it moved toward being more consistently critical, mostly that it was being likened to the upcoming Glenn Beck-Sarah Palin shindig in Alaska and to "Ground Zero mosque" opponents. Brent Baker dismissed Jones as a "widely condemned Florida pastor with barely a few dozen followers." Then, Noel Sheppard blundered in to ask, "did the media negligently create this controversy?" sneering that Jones is "some unknown Pastor - with a following smaller than what's normally in line at an In-n-Out restaurant drive-thru!" Sheppard went on to pontificate:
For weeks now, the press as a result of America's opposition to the Ground Zero mosque have been trying to convince the citizenry that we are an Islamophobic nation that hates Muslims. Despite the lack of any supporting evidence, this has been the media narrative for approaching a month.
With this in mind, an attention-seeking, unknown Pastor advertising a Koran bonfire was exactly what the press needed to prove once and for all just how much antipathy there is for Muslims here.
Sadly, they gave this guy his fifteen minutes of fame without any regard for the harm that could be done to Americans living abroad, in particular those fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. More hypocritically, so-called journalists are now blaming Jones for endangering the lives of others.
Wouldn't this not be the case if they ignored him? Isn't it all the press attention he's gotten that has actually caused this controversy? If media really are worried that his actions might result in an international incident, given how few people there are in his own area that care what he's got to say, couldn't they just similarly pay him no mind?
Consider that the press are largely in favor of the Ground Zero mosque despite being in the minority concerning this matter. They base their view on the Islamic center backers having the Constitutional right to build at that location regardless of how anyone feels about it. Yet, these same people are now in an uproar over Jones without a care for his Constitutional right to burn Korans.
But couldn't the same argument be made that the "Ground Zero mosque" was ginned up by conservative media in order to push their anti-Mulsim agenda? Sheppard seems uninterested in answering that question.
Newsmax: It has largely stuck to wire stories on the controversy, and what little supplemental material it has run has been critical -- a column by Susan Estrich and an interview with its own Ronald Kessler.
Corsi Wrong on Supposed Clinton Attack on Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a September 8 WorldNetDaily article, headlined "Et tu, Hillary? Panic button hit on Obama's colossal debt," Jerome Corsi writes that in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Hillary Clinton "said the U.S. budget deficit under the Obama administration poses a national security threat and projects a "message of weakness" internationally."
In fact, Clinton made no mention of Obama during that segment of the speech, and her words, in full context, are critical of the Bush administration, not Obama's.
Corsi hints at that by noting Clinton's specific reference to the activities of the Bush administration, but he dismissed it as "an apparent effort to blame President George W. Bush for the federal budget deficit problem."
But then, does any sentient being with a lick of sense take anythingCorsiwrites as face value? Didn't think so.