Right-wing movie critic Christian Toto writes in a June 24 NewsBusters post:
The media's liberal bias keep getting worse in the Age of Trump.
The Motor City Madman has had a change of heart.
Ted Nugent said he wants the country’s political rhetoric to soften in the wake of the June 14 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise by a Bernie Sanders fan. And he’ll do his part by shelving his own ugly comments regarding the modern Left.
“At the tender age of 69, my wife has convinced me I just can’t use those harsh terms,” he said on the 77 WABC radio program Thursday. “I cannot and will not and I encourage even my friends, slash, enemies on the left, in the Democrat and liberal world, that we have got to be civil to each other.”
The media lapped it up. Outlet after outlet trumpeted the news, from smaller newspapers to the biggest media organs in the country. Type “Ted Nugent rhetoric” into Google News. You’ll see the blanket coverage his comments generated.
And, along the way, reporters recited some of Nugent’s previous, unexpurgated rants. They also mentioned Nugent’s politics. He’s unapologetically conservative.
Nugent’s conversion makes for good copy, no doubt. It also highlights the blaring hypocrisy at work in today’s media.
Toto spends the rest of his post complaining that the Hollywood press didn't cover controversial tweets by George Takei.
Well, as long as we're going to talk about hypocrisy, let's talk about Toto's own. He concedes Nugent's comments about "the modern Left" were "ugly" -- actually, they were borderline death threats against President Obama and Hillary Clinton -- but he doesn't reproduce them the way he served up screenshots of the Takei comments that offended him. Why?
Most of Nugent's offensive comments were made in 2008 and 2012. Where was Toto at the time? Was he quick to condemn them, did he condemn them later, or did he stay silent? A search of Toto's personal website, Hollywood in Toto, turns up just one post carrying a Ted Nugent tag -- and that this very same one he ported to NewsBusters.
And how about his Media Research Center publisher? Well, there are NewsBusters posts that promoteNugentinterviews. The MRC's first reaction to the 2012 comments in which Nugent disgracefully called Obama a "subhuman mongrel" and invited him to "suck on my machine gun" was to play the equivocation game, whining that the media "ignored foul-mouthed comedian Bill Maher's $1 million donation to an Obama super PAC" and merely calling Nugent's hate-filled tirade "controversial." Another MRC post took equivocation even further by complaining that the media "failed to mention that Obama has his own history of using violent metaphors."
That was followed by the MRC uncritically posting a CBS interview with Nugent denying that he's extreme, except to grumble that "CBS made sure to emphasize that Nugent is not a moderate." A 2013 post cheered Nugent calling Michael Moore and Piers Morgan "subhuman punks."
It's not until Toto's post that the MRC has offered a judgment of Nugent's hate that went beyond the bland "controversial."
Farah Falsely Claims WND Never Suggested Clintons Had Seth Rich Killed Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah whines in his July 11 WorldNetDaily column:
It’s been 24 hours since I demanded a correction from fake-news Newsweek.
No acknowledgment. Needless to say, no correction.
My demand was solely based on this sentence in a story published Monday written by Alexander Nazaryan: “On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily (sic), it is all but an article of faith that (Seth) Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably by Clinton operatives.”
Since I am the founder, chief executive officer and editor in chief of WND, I think I would be well-positioned to know whether anyone at the news organization has ever said or written anything remotely resembling this unattributed and unsourced assertion. I can promise you that no one at WND has ever made such a suggestion – publicly or privately.
Yes, you would think that Farah would know what's on his own website. But as before when he has made such sweeping declarations, it's clear he does not.
for instance, here's an anonymously written May 16 WND article making the very suggestion that Farah says doesn't exist, under the headline "Chilling similarities between Seth Rich murder and 'Clinton Body Count' victims":
The unsolved case of Democratic National Committee data analyst Seth Rich’s death shares some eerie similarities with many mysterious deaths of individuals linked to former President Bill Clinton and twice failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Just as in the Rich case, several of the people who died mysterious deaths were shot spontaneously and in public places, sometimes from behind, sometimes by unknown assailants and often just before they were set to release incriminating evidence concerning the Clintons’ activities. In most cases, there were no signs of theft at the crime scenes. And while some of the deaths were ruled suicides, other cases remain a mystery.
On July 22, just 12 days after Rich’s death and days before the Democratic Party Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from DNC officials.
And here's an anonymously written August 2016 WND article headlined "'Clinton death list': 33 spine-tingling cases":
How many people do you personally know who have died mysteriously?
How about in plane crashes or car wrecks?
People beaten to death or murdered in a hail of bullets?
And what about violent freak accidents – like separate mountain biking and skiing collisions in Aspen, Colorado? Or barbells crushing a person’s throat?
Apparently, if you’re Bill or Hillary Clinton, the answer to that question is at least 33 – and possibly many more.
WND reported DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered near his affluent neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Rich was shot in the back at 4:15 a.m. while he walked home from his girlfriend’s apartment. Rich previously worked on the failed U.S. Senate campaign of Nebraska businessman Scott Kleeb, whose clean-energy business had come under investigation after losing $300,000 in 2010 and another $300,000 in 2011 despite having been subsidized by the Clinton Global Initiative.
A commentary by Rachel Alexanderat Townhall suggested possible corruption between the CGI and Kleeb “led to Sanders’ cronies pressuring Rich to leak what was going on.”
In one interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared to suggest that Rich, 27, was the source of the WikiLeaks-exposed DNC emails.
Three people with tangential connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton have died in unusual circumstances over the last few weeks, sparking a renewed interested in the so-called “body count” of people who allegedly got in the way of the “Clinton machine.”
And even WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared to suggest Tuesday that recently murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich, a 27-year-old Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot near his townhouse in Washington, D.C. last month, was the source of the WikiLeaks-exposed DNC emails.
Seth Rich, a DNC staffer, reportedly was shot in the back on July 10 in Washington while he apparently was walking home from his girlfriend’s apartment. Reported [Townhall's Rachel] Alexander: “Some are speculating that Hillary Clinton is behind the murder, because Rich could have been the DNC staffer responsible for leaking the 20,000 damaging DNC emails to WikiLeaks. The allegation is that powerful Sanders allies convinced Rich to leak the data.” Her column notes that Rich previously worked on the failed U.S. Senate campaign of Nebraska businessman Scott Kleeb, whose clean-energy business had come under investigation after losing $300,000 in 2010 and another $300,000 in 2011 despite having been subsidized by the Clinton Global Initiative. Possible corruption between the CGI and Kleeb “led to Sanders’ cronies pressuring Rich to leak what was going on.” Continued Alexander: “The myth-debunking site Snopes labeled the suspicion over Rich’s death as false. This is strange, since how does Snopes know that it is false? The police haven’t even completed their investigation yet, which Snopes admits. Many murders go unsolved, including several of the strange deaths of people associated with the Clintons.”
These are just three easily found examples. Indeed, as we've pointed out, the entire reason WND has gone all-in on the Seth Rich conspiracy theory is to besmirch the Clintons and suggest once again that they are murderers. If not, there's no reason to dredge up the discredited "Clinton Body Count" and put Rich on it, is there?
Nevertheless, Farah goes on to whine:
Notice Nazaryan’s approach: “It’s all but an article of faith,” he claims, at WND that we believe Hillary did in Seth Rich and that he provided the DNC emails to WikiLeaks. Does he know anyone at WND? Did he talk to anyone? Is there any published evidence of this fantasy? Does he cite any? Of course not. In fact, he has no track record as an actual news person. He’s always been a commentator, a pundit, an editorialist. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
If it's not an "article of faith" at WND that the Clintons had Rich killed, why did WND religiously put Rich on its "Clinton Body Count" lists?
Farah has forgotten that other people are well-positioned to know what is published on WND as well, being that it's a public, easily searchable website.
NEW ARTICLE: A Bevy of Bogus MRC Media 'Studies' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center rushes to defend President Trump from the negative media coverage he has earned by presenting narrowly tailored, biased talking points presented as "media research." Read more >>
WND Author Who Likened Obama to Antichrist Frets Over Alleged Demonization of Trump Topic: WorldNetDaily
From an anonymously written July 8 WorldNetDaily article:
President Trump has been under a savage attack by the media since the day he announced he was running for president. A left-wing political activist openly calls for jihad against him. Celebrities make death threats against the commander-in-chief, including one who posted a gory photo depicting her holding his severed head. A public play depicts Trump’s murder, gleefully sponsored by major corporations.
One talk-show host, former law-enforcement officer and pastor-author believes it’s more than simple political opposition. Carl Gallups, author of “When The Lion Roars,” contends the opposition to Trump is nothing short of demonic.
“It’s spiritual and it’s demonic and it’s a new day,” Gallups recently opined on “The Jim Bakker Show.” “It’s a shame. And there’s so much hypocrisy involved.”
Gallups said he is a believer in free speech and freedom of the arts, but the former officer warned there are “lines” people can step over, especially when they are directly inciting people to violence, particularly against the president of the United States. Gallups suggested even liberals know that what they are doing is wrong, illustrating his point with a simple thought experiment.
“I’m not trying to be trite about this, but I always look at the opposite first,” he said. “What if that was a tea-party member that held up the head in mockery of a president, any president, the president before Trump?”
Gallups sees prophetic significance in the ferocity of the opposition to Trump and in how many progressives seem to have lost their minds.
“The Bible speaks in the last days of being given over to a depraved mind, of truth being thrown to the ground, eventually there will come the man of lawlessness, who the world will gather around and say … this man is like God,” the pastor said. “There will be a generation like us that sees that, I don’t know if it’s us, but this is what I’m saying, it’s complex. This is what’s happening before our eyes … truth has been turned upside down.”
Gallups suggested the country itself is under demonic attack.
Gallups conveniently forgets his own slab of demonization he hurled at President Obama: portraying him as the Antichrist.
As we've documented, Gallups -- then hiding behind the name PPSIMMONS -- made a video in 2009 (promoted by WND, natch) claiming he found the words "Baraq Ubamah" in the Hebrew version of the Bible and decided that meant Obama was the Antichrist, or something. Gallups tried to walk it back several years later, insisting that "I have never proclaimed that Obama's the antichrist" and that he was just repeating someone else's interpretation.
And asa far as savage attacks and celebrity death threats against presidents go, where was Gallups when right-wing darling Ted Nugent called Obama a "subhuman mongrel" and that he's a "piece of shit" who should "suck on my machine gun"? Or when Nugent said of the Obama administration in 2012, "We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November," adding that if Obama won re-election, "I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year"?
Nowhere that we could find. Apparently demonization is perfectly fine with Gallups when the president is a Democrat.
CNS Sticks to Trump-Dictated Editorial Agenda on Nominations Topic: CNSNews.com
The Trump White House's message of the day for July 11 -- at least until the the whole Donald Trump Jr. collusion thing blew up -- was alleged obstruction of Trump nominees by Senate Democrats. And CNSNews.com, like the Trump stenographers they are, dutifully parroted that message.
Democrats in the Senate have launched an "unprecedented obstruction" campaign of President Donald Trump's nominees, the White House said Monday.
Marc Short, director of Legislative Affairs, likened the Democrats' behavior to children on the playground who take their toys and go home out of spite.
There are a total of 133 nominees waiting for consideration by various committees, Short noted.
"To date, the Senate has confirmed a total of 50 Trump administration nominees. To put that in perspective, the Senate had confirmed 202 officials at this same point in the Obama administration. We think that that is a fair analogy, because Republicans now control the Senate. Democrats controlled the Senate at that point, and the comparison is 50 to 202," Short said.
"By the August recess in 2009, the Senate had confirmed 292 Obama administration nominees by voice vote alone. To date, the Trump administration nominees have received five voice vote confirmations," he said.
Short accused Democrats of "putting their agenda ahead of the will of the American people."
President Donald Trump's first tweets on Tuesday dealt with Democrat obstructionism, the need for Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare, and his effort to bring the Olympics to Los Angeles.
"The Senate Democrats have only confirmed 48 of 197 Presidential Nominees. They can't win so all they do is slow things down & obstruct!" he wrote at 7 a.m.
On that same subject, President Donald Trump retweeted an item from "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday morning. The retweet quoted Mark Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, as blaming Sen. Chuck Schumer for "running an unprecedented campaign of obstruction aginst the President's nominees for high-ranking posistions in government."
Neither Jones nor Arter mentioned the fact that, as the Associated Press notes, the Senate is controlled by Republicans, which means they control the floor schedule of when nominees are consider. They are also silent on the fact that that one significant factor in the lack of Senate approval of Trump's nominees is that Trump has submitted so few of them. As Politico pointed out, of the 564 executive branch jobs that require preisdential nominations, Trump hasn't nominated anyone for 384 of them.
By contrast to Jones' and Arter's slavish fealty to the White House line, a July 12 CNS article by Zenny Phuong shockingly (for CNS) tells both sides of the story, conceding that Senate Republicans obstructed President Obama's nominees. Phuong didn't, however, didn't ask the conservatives she quoted in her article -- Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino and the Heritage Foundation's Ed Feulner -- about their respective flip-flops on obstruction of presidential nominees.
WND Calls In Limbaugh To Try And Spin Away Trump Jr. Collusion Scandal Topic: WorldNetDaily
How bad is the scandal over Donald Trump Jr.'s emails and contacts with what he was told was a Russian government lawyer over possible Russian government research attacking Hillary Clinton? The only story on the scandal on WorldNetDaily's Tuesday night front-page promotional carousel is an article by Bob Unruh trying to spin it away and prominently featuring right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh insisting there's nothing there:
For months now, the floodgates have been gushing with claims that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to win the election.
“Collusion,” “collaboration” and “conspiracy” have been key words in headlines.
However, even analysts from the left, including Barack Obama’s green-jobs “czar” Van Jones, have called the allegations “a big nothing-burger.”
Now the headlines are aflame with word that Donald Trump Jr. met with a “Russian lawyer” last year.
The New York Times reported Trump Jr. was told in an email “before the meeting that the information [lawyer Natalia] Veselnitskaya had was part of a Russian government effort to help his father’s candidacy,” NBC reported.
Then, Trump Jr. released emails Tuesday confirming the meeting.
“The email exchange shows an acquaintance with ties to Russia, music publicist Rob Goldstone, telling the son of then-candidate Trump last year that the attorney had ‘information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,'” NBC reported.
Trump Jr. said he went to the meeting, listened and nothing came of it: “Obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent … went nowhere but had to listen,” he said on social media.
Then, in what may be the weirdest bit of trolling we've ever seen, the story is accompanied by a reader poll asking, "What are your thoughts on Trump Jr. in 2024?" The top answer as of this writing: "Great pick! Let's get to work ..."
MRC's Sports Blogger Is In LGBT Freakout Mode Topic: Media Research Center
Mysterious Media Research Center sports blogger Jay Maxson has found someone he hates with as much passion as Colin Kaepernick and Barack Obama, and it's the gays and anything that might be remotely considered gay, like basic human decency and compassion for one's fellow man.
Consider Maxson's July 5 rant against a columnist who questioned "toxic masculinity" in baseball, which obviously means that we must succumb to "LGBT fascists":
This is not my father's issue of The Sporting News anymore. A minor league baseball writer fronting as a major league LGBT activist for the publication claims Major League Baseball has a problem with "toxic masculinity" and that by allowing "Christian Night" at the ballpark, teams are negatively offsetting "pride nights." If Jessica Quiroli, alias #heels on the field, had her way, baseball would also succumb to the ongoing feminization of the American male.
Quiroli opened her piece by zeroing in on Toronto outfielder Kevin Pillar, who got into hot water when he hurled a less-than-masculine insult at a rival pitcher earlier this season. "But he didn’t just lash out; he resorted to using a homophobic word to express his anger," she writes. "In that moment, he didn’t just expose his own faults, but the distance MLB still has to go in order to guide players on a deeper level."
Of course that deeper level means ball players should be robotically programmed with a healthy fear of the LGBT fascists and do their bidding.
Maxson went on to justify homophobia in baseball because two players were suspended for their anti-gay slurs: "Neither player was at the time fearful of homosexuals, but you can bet they have a big-league phobia about the clout of LGBT activists now."
The Washington Post sports section is suddenly showing a lot of interest in unusual events. If you're saying there must be an agenda behind it, you're absolutely right! The Post's story on a homosexual rodeo follows the typical major metro daily script on liberal issues and people: portray them as sympathetic figures doing normal things. Normalize the illegal or the unusual. Help the LGBT agenda occupy yet another part of the culture until it is awash in the rainbow flag.
Roman Stubbs normally covers University of Maryland sports, but recently made a stunning departure from his normal beat by detouring to Harrisburg, Pa., for some agenda reporting. That was the site of the sparsely attended Keystone State Gay Rodeo. It's run by the International Gay Rodeo Association, which has more defunct chapters than active, but it's newsworthy to the Post and worth brownie points with LGBT activists.
Stubbs' story focuses on Louis Varnado and Andy Pittman, rodeo competitors ... andhusbands: "The married couple from Upper Marlboro shared a kiss and whispered good luck to each other before lining up with the other riders."
Competing against each other in the pole (and gender) bending competition, Pittman "beat his husband's time" and then "gave his husband a thumb's up."
Maxson obviously (and egotistically) believes the rest of America should be as squicked out by people of the same sex showing affection for each other as he is, as his concluding rant amply demonstrates:
Homosexual rodeos would not be complete without a little romance either. Stubbs tells how Mark Smith married Floyd Zwiers in a ceremony in the middle of a rodeo arena. A photo embedded in the story displays the two showing off their wedding rings.
"And while it is not every rodeo that (International Gay Rodeo Association president Bruce) Gros officiates a wedding, those are the kind of celebrations that tie the organization together," Stubbs says, probably grabbing for a tissue by now.
Some of these rodeo hands said they feel snubbed by mainstream rodeo, but the Professional Bull Riders organization has contacted Gros about a relationship in the future. “What we’re looking forward to is the day that there are out cowboys and cowgirls competing in the professional level, but that has not yet happened,” he said.
Maybe that's because many Americans, in a majority of states, were disgusted and disenfranchised when activist Supreme Court justices mandated same-sex marriage as the law of the land. They voted for marriage as the union of one man and one woman because it's been the bedrock of civilization, and the High Court threw out their votes. They won't be amused by the way this story ends either.
Varnado won some money at the Keystone rodeo, prompting this line from Stubbs: "Pittman gently wrapped his arm around his husband’s neck and said: “I’m proud of you, baby doll.”
Perhaps if he circulated outside the right-wing MRC retinue, he might figure out that it's a bad idea to dictate someone else's human rights by popular vote.
Does hatred and contempt make one a good blogger for a multimillion-dollar organization? The MRC has apparently decided it does.
WND's Solution To Bad CBO Score On GOP Health Care Bill: Attack The CBO Topic: WorldNetDaily
Art Moore whines in a July 3 WorldNetDaily article:
The Congressional Budget Office’s scoring of the Senate Republicans’ initial health-care proposal fueled Democrat complaints that the GOP is heartlessly stripping millions of their insurance plans.
Now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he will send a revised bill to the CBO next week for scoring, apparently hoping to trim the CBO’s estimate that more than 22 million Americans would lose their health insurance in the next 10 years if the legislation passed in its current form. House Republicans passed their own version three weeks ago without waiting for a CBO score. It replaced an earlier version the CBO had said would result in 24 million being without insurance.
But critics of the CBO — described as a bipartisan federal agency within the legislative branch that provides budget and economic information and assessment to Congress — wonder why a Republican Congress would allow a group with a history of inaccurate forecasts that typically fail to account for the impact of market forces. And some have called for the agency to be disbanded or replaced.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed outsourcing the projections of budget legislation to three to five professional firms that understand the interaction between legislation and the marketplace.
He wants them to compete against each other, and the worst performer, including the CBO, would lose its contract.
Gingrich argues the CBO does not score legislation dynamically. It ignores growth that results from tax cuts and the reduced growth that results from tax increases in its projections.
Failing to model reality, he contends, the CBO “creates an inherent legislative bias toward more taxes and budget gimmicks.”
Moore and Gingrich don't explain how speculative and unquantifiable "growth that results from tax cuts" should be scored to reflect that "reality."
As a loyal conservative, Moore makes it clear his animus toward the CBO is totally partisan: "The reaction in Congress to the CBO scoring of the current Senate health-care bill reflects the cynicism many Republicans have toward the agency’s work."
MRC, CNS Can't Stop Falsely Suggesting Federal Funding to Planned Parenthood Pays for Abortions Topic: CNSNews.com
One of CNSNews.com's longtimeacts of deliberate dishonesty when reporting on Planned Parenthood is stating how much federal funding it receives immediately next to how many abortions its clinics perform, while omitting the pertinent fact that no federal funding pays for abortions because it's prohibited by law.
So it's not a surprise that CNS has continued to peddle this dishonesty, clearly endorsed from the very top.
CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman wrote in a June 27 post that "According to its 2015-16 Annual Report, Planned Parenthood performed 328,348 abortions in the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2015, and received $554.6 million in "government health services reimbursements and grants"--money that came from U.S. taxpayers--in the year that ended on June 30, 2016. Chapman didn't mention that none of that "money that came from U.S. taxpayers" paid for abortions.
Chapman repeated and expanded his claim in a July 5 article:
In its 2015-16 annual report, Planned Parenthood declared that it performed 328,348 abortions in the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2015, and received $554.6 million in "government health services reimbursements and grants"--money that came from U.S. taxpayers--in the year that on June 30, 2016.
In addition, in 2014-15, Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortions in the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2014 and received $553.7 million in government health services grants and reimbursements in the year that ended on June 30, 2015.
The dishonesty is spreading to the greater MRC as well. Katie Yoder wrote on May 3 that "According to Planned Parenthood’s most recently published annual report, the organization performed 323,999 abortions and received $553.7 million in 'government health services grants and reimbursements' for the year 2014 – 2015," failing to mention that those government grants do not pay for abortion.
Yoder updated her dishonestly placed statistics for a July 3 MRC item: "According to Planned Parenthood's most recently published annual report, the organization performed 328,348 abortions and received $554.6 million in “government health services grants and reimbursements” for the year 2015 – 2016." Again, a refusal to honestly report those numbers.
That lack of honesty undercuts CNS' and the MRC's moral authority in attacking Planned Parenthood. Then again, rampant dishonesty seems to be a majorpart of the MRC's campaign against the organization.
UPDATE: A July 5 CNS article by Annabel Scott repeated this dishonest claim as well.
WND Columnist Opposes Clarence Darrow Statue At Scopes 'Monkey Trial' Site Topic: WorldNetDaily
Larry Tomczak's July 4 WorldNetDaily column is about how he was a speaker at a rally protesting the installation of a statue of famed attorney Clarence Darrow next to that of William Jennings Bryan outside the Tennessee courthouse where the Scopes "monkey trial" was held in the 1920s:
The circus-like atmosphere of the trial ended with Mr. Scopes found guilty and fined about $1,400 (today’s money). Bryan died in his sleep five days afterward. The verdict was later overturned on a technicality and later a biased and dishonest play and film, “Inherit the Wind,” caused millions to ridicule religious opposition to evolution.
The fundamental issue is the same today: Regarding the origin of our universe and mankind, will we honor a secular/evolutionary worldview or a spiritual/creationist worldview? And can instructors present both views, or must those adhering to the trustworthiness of Scripture be forced to remain silent in the face of one-sided propaganda?
July 1, on these grounds, we participated in a patriotic rally. It wasn’t primarily about freedom of speech or religion. Rather it focused on the ongoing attempt by secularists in America to blur or remove symbols reminding us of our Judeo/Christian heritage.
I was the main speaker alongside of Dale Walker, president of the Tennessee Pastors Network, Sen. Mae Beavers, Tennessee gubernatorial candidate, and numerous Christian leaders. Our presence gave expression to our passion to preserve America’s heritage and proclaim that our Founding Fathers were not atheists and evolutionists.
Intellectual elites see biblical teaching on creation as an offense to intelligence. They declare it unscientific and dismiss the biblical account of man’s origin. Atheist Richard Dawkins said, “If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.”
Jesus declared, “Have you not read that He who made [CREATED] them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew19:4) – so does Dawkins’ description apply to Him? Are Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19-33, which affirm God as Creator, simply fairy tales?
Because of the stigma and national embarrassment of the Scopes trial (along with the defeat of unbiblical Prohibition), multitudes of Christians were disheartened. From the 1920s to ’70s many retreated from engagement in the public square. Failing to recognize what Augustine called our dual responsibilities in the “City of God and the City of Man,” many said, “Just preach the gospel,” “Stay out of politics,” “Let things collapse so Jesus will come back!”
Jesus directs us to preach the Gospel, but it’s the Gospel of His kingdom advancing His reign over every sphere of life. We have the Great Commission but also the Cultural Commission whereby, as “salt” and “light,” we “expose unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11).
We’re called to be Christian advocates for righteousness. The Abolition Movement that eradicated slavery and the Civil Rights Movement that combated injustice through nonviolence are just two examples of Christian activism that changed America.
Christians are not to be silent bystanders in the face of this tsunami of secular humanism. We’re called to be peaceful, prayerful and passionate ambassadors for our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Our society has experienced unbelievable devastation, having drifted from our biblical foundation of God as Creator and Scripture as our authoritative guide. I call your attention to the Bullseye Challenge that exposes this tragic development, while helping us in just 30 days educate our families and churches in an unshakable biblical worldview!
We must be equipped and engaged in this ongoing battle dealing with Origins 101. One man, Charles Darwin, propagated a theory that adversely impacted the world. Will you join with Christians like those who gathered in Dayton, Tennessee, to promote truth and persuade others, like our Founding Fathers did, to honor our Creator as our Declaration of Independence affirms?
Does Tomczak think that those who want only creationism taught think evolutionists should stay silent in the face of "one-sided propaganda"? And how, exactly, does does creationism fit with the Declaration of Independence? Tomczak doesn't elaborate.
(Image: Sculptor Zenos Frudakis with prototype of Darrow statue, via Americans United)
After a month in which she had to concede that the unemployment numbers weren't as good as she'd prefer for her beloved President Trump, CNSNews.com's Susan Jones was back to cheerleadering over the June jobless figures:
The U.S. economy added 220,000 jobs in June, the best showing since February and well above analysts' expectations of 174,000.
The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics also said the number of employed Americans -- which set records in February, March and April -- set another record in June, at 153,168,000 employed.
And the number of Americans not in the labor force -- after four straight monthly gains – dropped a bit to 94,813,000.
Remember, during the Obama years Jones would be leading with the low labor force participation rate and burying any positive numbers (as well as the fact that students and retired baby boomers make up a significant percentage of people not in the labor force).
As usual, Jones' article was accompanied by a Terry Jeffrey article fretting over government jobs being created at a faster rate than manufacturing jobs. Also as usual, the Obama-era staples about racial disparities in unemployment and the "real unemployment rate" are missing, as they have been since Trump took office.
WND Implicitly Concedes White Nationalist Overtone to Trump Speech -- Then Complains When It's Made Explicit Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a July 6 WorldNetDaily article, Art Moore rhapsodized over President Trump's speech in Poland, making a very specific reference in doing so:
Ten years ago, Warsaw hosted an international conference warning of a “demographic winter” that posed an existential threat to Europe as the rejection of the “natural family” was leading to plunging birthrates and the consequent importation of millions of workers from countries with historic colonial ties who spurn Western values and refuse to assimilate.
A decade of social upheaval and terrorist attacks, accelerated by the recent influx of Muslim migrants, has turned many mockers and skeptics of that concept into believers.
And now, in his speech Thursday to a rapturous crowd in Warsaw’s Krasinski Square, President Trump has raised the issue of the West’s survival, arguing it rests ultimately not on armies and economies but on “strong families and strong values.”
“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost?” Trump asked.
“Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”
In 2007, WND covered the fourth World Congress of Families in Warsaw, attended by 3,300 lawmakers and activists from 75 nations.
One of the speakers, Poland’s vice premier and minister of education, Roman Giertych, declared the family as “the hope for Poland, the hope for Europe, the hope for the entire world.”
“Without the family, there is no nation, there is no continent, there is no civilization, there is nothing,” he said.
The planners of the World Congress of Families in 2007 said they were looking “beyond demographic winter,” promoting the “natural family” as the “springtime of Europe and the world.”
“Poland saved Europe before” by lifting the Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 and helping to demolish the Soviet empire three centuries later and it is likely “she will save Europe again,” they said.
As we documented at the time, the whole "demographic winter" stuff is basically a white-nationalist argument, with the entire goal being to increase the birth rate among white Christians in order to head off the swarthy Muslim hordes.
In other words, by bringing up "demographic winter," Moore is implictly admitting that Trump's speech had white nationalist overtones.
Which is why it was strange that, the next day, WND freaked out about people who aren't WND news editors pointing out those very same white-nationalilst overtones. A July 7 article by Liam Clancy actually claimed those critics were demonstrating that "demonstrating their opposition to Western civilization" by doing so:
President Trump’s speech Thursday in Poland elicited a frenzied reaction from many progressives, demonstrating their opposition to Western civilization.
The focus of outrage was a passage detailing how the West will survive in the 21st century.
“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” Trump said. “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”
Trump continued, “We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.”
Peter Beinart of the Atlantic called the passage “a statement of racial and religious paranoia.”
He went on to call the idea that the West was in danger from outside forces fundamentally “absurd,” contending jihadists can kill people in the West but not topple their governments.
Beinart did not address the growing numbers of known Islamic terrorists living across the European continent.
Sarah Wildman at Vox declared that Trump’s speech in Poland “sounded like an alt-right manifesto,” citing a quote from the speech, “For family, for freedom, for country and for God.”
Wildman went on to state that Trump “cast the West, including the United States and Europe, on the side of ‘civilization,'” using scare quotes to imply he was wrong to do so.
But Trump never hinted the West was the only civilization, or even that it was superior to others, merely that the West is threatened by external enemies.
Josh Lowe at Newsweek took aim at the concept of Western civilization and values as well, believing the passage “painted the external struggle against threats like violent extremists as being tied to an internal struggle to defend supposed ‘Western values.'”
Lowe employed scare quotes around “Western values” to imply no such thing exists and that Islamic terrorism is not truly a threat to these “supposed” values.
Regarding Trump’s statement that every “foot of ground, and every last inch of civilization, is worth defending with your life,” Lowe wrote that he “really, really hope[s] this is a metaphor.”
Jeet Heer at the New Republic declared Trump’s speech was the beginning of “an international brotherhood of white grievance.”
He also called the speech “alt-right,” claiming Trump “won the presidency with a campaign of white nationalism.”
Heer said Trump “has used white grievance politics to redefine ‘the West.'”
Note Clancy's mind-reading about what he thinks critics of the speech "implied," and that any criticism of the speech was equal to "opposition to Western civilization." I guess we can similary assume that when WND puts "gay" in scare quotes, it is meant to imply no such thing exists.
But never mind all that, Clancy says, because the Poles loved it: "The speech, however, was well received by Trump’s audience in Poland: The crowd erupted into chants of 'Trump! Trump! Trump!' several times."
Clancy is certainly not going to concede that his WND colleague's "demographic winter" reminiscience is a white nationalist narrative either.
MRC Peddles Discredited Obama 'Apology Tour' Myth Topic: Media Research Center
In a July 7 Media Research Center post, John Hirachauer cheered President Trump's "rousing defense of Western civilization" in a speech in Poland, asserting that the only people who didn't like it were the "perpetually outraged." Hirschauer went on to attack CNN's Don Lemon for asking whether Trump should have been "defending America and the press" during his speech:
One wonders- does Lemon’s unabashed patriotism extend to berating a President who literally went on an international tour, denying the uniqueness of the American experiment and apologizing to despots and thug-ocracies the world over for incidents of American intolerance? The answer is no, of course, because he works for CNN, who carried water on this subject (among others) for President Obama.
Hirschauer's evidence of this is a YouTube compilation of outy-of-context quotes in which Obama never actually apologizes for anything. Indeed, the whole idea that Obama went on an "apology tour" is nothing but a right-wing myth. As PolitiFact explains:
We set out to discover whether Obama really had apologized in his speeches, and what he was apologizing for. But in our review of his words, we came up short. Yes, there is criticism in some of his speeches, but it's typically leavened by praise for the United States and its ideals, and often he mentions other countries and how they have erred as well. There's not a full-throated, sincere apology in the bunch.
Hirschauer's further attack on CNN for having "carried water" for Obama on this subject is simply the website pointing out the same thing PolitiFact found: Obama never apologized.
When we tweeted Hirschauer to inform him of his factual error, he responded (in a tweet that was deleted shortly afterward):
Had we been allowed to reply to Hirschauer before he deleted his tweet, we would have told him that random, out-of-context YouTube videos are divinations from on high either, and that claiming that Obama "language" whs "apologetic" ignores the fact that the words "apologize" or "I'm sorry" were not part of that "language." Also, insisting something in true despite the facts doesn't make it so, even if that's an article of faith among his fellow conservatives.
The Clinton Derangement Never Stops At WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last time we checked in on WorldNetDaily's ongoing case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, it was freaking out over Chelsea Clinton making spinach pancakes. Now comes an anonymously written July 3 WND article:
Her rise to power was once seen as inevitable, her victory in the run for the presidency a foregone conclusion.
Yet today, Hillary Clinton is nothing but a source of anger, embarrassment and frustration for many Democrats who blame the former first lady for wasting enormous sums of money on an incompetent 2016 presidential campaign.
It was, after all, the second time she’s tried and come up short.
Yet to hear her, it was not her fault; it was sexism, the Russians and even the Democratic Party’s national leadership.
One observer who has closely followed her scandal-plagued career over decades, a childhood friend and former romantic partner of former President Bill Clinton, says there is no chance Hillary Clinton will ever accept responsibility for her failures, nor will she ever gracefully fade away from the media spotlight.
“Are you kidding me?” Dolly Kyle responded when asked if Hillary Clinton is planning on running for president again. “Hillary’s already running for president in 2020!
“For over 45 years, she has been riding Billy Clinton’s coattails. She has always known, at a deep level, she was incapable of achieving the lofty goal on her own. That’s why she followed Billy back to Arkansas in 1974. Does anyone think Hillary would have been elected to the Senate from New York if she had not discarded any shred of personal integrity by hitching her political wagon to a rapist/serial sex abuser? OK, to give the devil his due, Billy is a charming, politically astute rapist/serial sex abuser.
“In staying ‘married’ to Billy Clinton, Hillary has been abased and degraded as a battered spouse. After putting up with him/that for all these decades, she is not going to give up now. She has ‘paid her dues.’ It’s ‘her turn.’ She deserves it. She believes this.”
Never mind that Kyle can't possibly know any of this, given that it's unlikely she has had contact with anyone named Clinton for at least two decades. It seems Kyle had some Clinton-hate to spill and knew a similarly afflicted place where she could spill it. There is no news here whatsoever.
The fact that nowhere is it identified to whom exactly Kyle spewed all fo this tells us that this is nothing more than a publicist's plug for her Clinton-bashing book (it was published by WND, after all). And there is indeed a plug involved:
Kyle outlined her history with “Billy” Clinton and encounters with Hillary in her blockbuster book, “Hillary The Other Woman: A Political Memoir.” The book has garnered nearly 900 five-star reviews at Amazon.com, with an average rating of 4.6 stars out of five with 1,130 total reviews.
Now, for Independence Day, Amazon.com has reported it will make the Kindle edition of the book a Daily Deal, at a special price of only $1.49 on July 4.
The fact that WND is presenting this deranged press release as "news" tells you all you need to know about its journalism standards.
CNS' Jeffrey Falsely Suggests Nothing Has Been Done To Reform Visas After 9/11 Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com edoitor in chief Terry Jeffrey spent his June 7 column recounting how one of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. on a tourist visa. He concluded:
"It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country," concluded the 9/11 Commission staff report on terrorist travel, published three years after the attacks.
But, even then, the problem had not been fixed.
"Indeed," said the commission staff in 2004, "even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy."
Now, 16 years after 9/11, President Donald Trump appears committed to fixing this problem and securing our border — including where it runs through our international airports.
Jeffrey is being disingenuous in his false suggestion that absolutely nothing has been done to address visa issues, hiding the work that has been done. He's also conveniently mum on the fact that Republicans ahve controlled Congress during most of the post-9/11 era.
An actual news outlet, CBS, explains the actual situation:
Congress passed legislation in 2004 requiring the implementation of a biometric entry/exit system. Still, 12 years later, actually implementing that system has remained elusive—though experts say technological advances mean it’s on the horizon -- at least for people arriving by air.
There’s widespread consensus that such a program needs to be put in place, but it’s been much more difficult to do in practice than it is to support in theory. One House aide noted that it’s not a partisan issue: various proposals for implementing the system have received broad bipartisan support.
“If it was easy, it would have been done already,” the aide CBS News.
To begin with, it wasn’t until the last few years that technology was up to the task: a 2009 pilot program at airports ended up being scrapped, experts say, because the process was too clunky to use nation-wide and would have required too many additional security staffers, among other reasons. There are also questions about how such a system could be implemented while still keeping the flow of international passengers moving at high-volume airports in the U.S.
It's simply dishonest for Jeffrey to claim nothing as been done on the issue and that his beloved President Trump is riding in to save the day because he's "committed to fixing this problem and securing our border" -- as if nobody else has been over the past 15 years.