WND's Birthers Atempt To Ignore Birther Issue With Cruz Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is way enthusiastic about the idea of Ted Cruz running for president:
A March 23 article by Cheryl Chumley touts how "the fiery tea party Texan" told an mandatory convocation at right-wing Liberty University about "what he described as the greatness of America: that our rights come from God.
Garth Kant gushed over how Cruz "will follow the playbook of the right’s greatest hero, Ronald Reagan."
The king of all gushers, though, is WND editor Joseph Farah, who slobbered:
It’s been a long time since I’ve heard any political figure do what Sen. Ted Cruz did yesterday in his announcement he is seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency.
He delivered an electrifying, motivational, rousing case for liberty – explaining why it’s not too late, why Americans don’t need to lower their expectations, how this country has overcome greater odds in its history.
I am not making an endorsement for the presidency here. But I am giving Ted Cruz a big hallelujah, a heartfelt amen.
This is the way I wish other Republicans and conservatives would talk. There’s a reason Ronald Reagan, with similar views, was able to win landslide victories in the 1980s. It’s because he was the Great Communicator. Ted Cruz may be one, too.
Unmentioned in all of these articles: Discussion of Cruz's eligibility to bne president. (Farah huffed that Cruz's critics noted that "There are questions about his constitutional eligibility for office.")
WND has long promoted the idea that the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" -- which the Constitution does not define -- should be defined only as someone born in the U.S. to parents who are both American citizens. In the process, WND has studiously avoided reporting the existence of court rulings that support the idea that citizenship can be conveyed at birth through other means.
WND's strict definition of "natural born citizen" hits the wall when it comes to Cruz -- not only was he born in Canada, his father was not an American citizen and did not become one until 2005. Thus, under the definition WND has embraced, Joseph Farah's favored candidate for president cannot run legally run for office.
Further, Cruz held dual citizenship in Canada before renouncing it only last year. WND -- which made a big deal out of Obama having dual citizenship in Kenya, which he automatically lost on his 23rd birthday -- has touted the birther argument that "the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural-born."
But when Donald Trump -- who sought the aid of Farah and WND when he wanted to attack Obama's eligibility in 2011 -- played the birther card on Cruz, it was only then that WND was moved to address the issue.
Even though WND has a ridiculously large archive of articles about Obama's "eligibility," Cheryl Chumley didn't reference any of them in her March 24 article, instead pushing definitions of "natural born citizen" that included Cruz (which are in the mainstream of constitutional thought).
Farah previewed WND's strategy a year ago when he washed his hands of Cruz birtherism after his Obama birther crusade bombed so spectacularly. Now, it seems WND is trying to bury the idea that it ever raised eligibility issues.
NewsBusters' Blumer Don't Need No Stinkin' Facts, Context Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters blogger Tom Blumer has had a very bad past couple of days.
First, in a March 20 post, he threw a fit over PolitiFact rating Ted Cruz's assertion (echoing right-wing climate deniers) that there has been no global warming for 17 years "mostly false." Blumer is very upset that PolitiFact put the claim in context, noting that it "contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression." PolitiFact also points out that deniers who make the claim are "cherry-picking a timeframe that starts at an extremely warm year and ignores that the first decade of the 21st century."
But Blumer don't need no stinkin' context:
Ocean temperatures aren't rising, and there is some evidence of serious data manipulation issues in the ocean-related data (and elsewhere). Antarctic sea ice has recently reached record levels.
Cruz's statement to Meyers was and remains absolutely true.
As a result, I rate [PolitiFact writer] Lauren Carroll's work "Completely Lame."
How very mature of Blumer to do that.
Blumer followed up this performance with a March 22 rant headlined "Not News: Obama Admin's 'Lying Weasels' Delisted Iran and Hezbollah As Terror Threats." He begins by ranting:
From all appearances, only Fox News, CNS News, and a few Israel-based outlets and U.S.-based center-right blogs care about the fact, acknowledged by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, that Iran and Hezbollah, in the words of Fox's Greta Van Susteren, "are suddenly MIA from the U.S. terror threat list."
Just one problem with that for Blumer: It didn't happen.
As PunditFact points out, the only U.S. government list of terrorist organizations that counts is from the State Department, and that list still has Iran and Hezbollah on it. The DNI assessment being referred to by Blumer is not an official list of terrorist organizations but is, as its title states, a "Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community."
Blumer does note that DNI told CNS the purported downplaying of Iran and Hezbollah was due to a "format change" in the report, but he doesn't mention that State, not DNI, keeps the official terrorist list. CNS, in the March 18 article by Patrick Goodenough Blumer is referencing, also fails to report that DNI does not keep the official terrorist list.
But as with context, Blumer don't need no stinkin' facts. He concludes his post by ranting, "There is no defensible reason why these disturbing developments have not received wider media visibility."
Um, how about because it's not true? That seems like an entirely defensible reason.
WND vs. Hagee 'Blood Moons' Credit Battle Continues Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's war with pastor John Hagee over the "blood moons" idea goes to the next level in a March 22 WND article describing the response by a Hagee spokesman to WND's demand that Hagee retract his claim to be the "discoverer" of the "blood moons" idea.
The spokesman, Ari Morgenstern, claims that Hagee was referring to his personal discovery, not claiming to be the first person to have discovered it. Farah sneered in response that this was “parsing words in a way that would make Bill Clinton proud.”
WND engaged in its own Clinton-esque parsing later in the article, when it responded to Morgenstern's claim that "WND falsely claimed that Hagee does not believe that Jews need Jesus to be saved." WND's response: "WND never reported on what Hagee currently believes, only on the controversy he set off when he said in a commercial what would be found in his book," followed by more sneering from Farah that "I’m happy to hear that Hagee no longer subscribes to those anti-biblical positions."
As before, WND buries its financial interest in this issue -- it published a bookon the subject by Mark Biltz, who does claim to have discovered the issue, and made a movie about it. WND demonstrated more than a little butthurt when the Hagee spokesman pointed this out:
Morgenstern concluded in his letter: “While these facts clearly call into question WND’s objectivity, they pale in comparison to the conflict of interest associated with Farah’s apparent financial stake in advancing this false narrative. Not surprisingly, in the piece, WND repeatedly advertises and links to purchase options of Biltz’s relevant book and film – which as the WND piece mentions, Farah is, respectively, publisher and producer.”
“I do hope that Farah will exhibit the strength of character to acknowledge that he’s made what I believe are a series of financially motivated blunders,” Morgenstern continued. “However, either way, I would note that in our view, WND is obligated to issue corrections to those errors discussed above.”
Farah responded by saying: “I am accused of standing up for Mark Biltz because of my own financial interests. Yet it is Hagee who has made millions off Mark Biltz’s discovery, far more than Biltz and I combined ever expect to make as a result of our work on this subject.”
Note that Farah never denies that financial issues are a motivation for his actions against Hagee.
As before, the WND article doesn't carry a byline despite the fact it's one of the more balanced (if still self-aggrandizing) pieces of reporting it's published in years.
Meanwhile, Farah devoted his March 22 column to telling his side of the story, insisting that "I think we have presented Hagee and his team with a simple, inexpensive and honorable way to do the right thing for Mark Biltz, his book, his movie and his reputation" but that so far they "have acted like the offended party, claiming WND and Biltz have mischaracterized the facts."
Given WND's long history of mischaracterizing facts, Hagee's team does have a point.
MRC Excuses Netanyahu's Racist Appeal As Just A Get-Out-The-Vote Effort Topic: Media Research Center
Last time we checked in with the Media Research Center's manufactured outrage over media figures calling out Benjamin Netanyahu's racist, anti-Arab appeal to fearmonger his supporters to get to the polls, it was justifying it by claiming that Arabs are anti-Semitic.
The MRC has now expanded on its defense of Netanyahu. Rich Noyes complains in a March 21 NewsBusters post:
In attacking Netanyahu’s campaign tactics, some liberal journalists smeared American conservatives as well: “In what appeared to be a panicked last-ditch ploy to turn out right wing voters today, he took another page in the American playbook, resorting to demagoguery,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes announced on Tuesday night, saying of Netanyahu: “He is Israel’s George W. Bush.”
On Wednesday, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg hit the same note on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports: “He kind of played the Israeli version of the Southern Strategy and basically tried to scare his base into coming out and giving their votes to him by saying, essentially, ‘the Arabs are coming.’...He used that as a scare tactic. So it’s a pretty brutal 48 hours from certain perspectives.”
Here’s what Netanyahu posted on his Facebook page on Tuesday that so offended journalists: “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out.”
The various Arab parties that cooperated to form a Joint List for Tuesday’s election all vehemently opposed Netanyahu for Prime Minister. So how is it wrong to point out, in essence, that “the other side seems to be getting its voters out, so we’d better, too.”?
That's right -- Noyes is justifying Netanyahu's racist appeal as a mere get-out-the-vote tactic.
Any U.S. politician making a similar appeal by singling out an entire race or ethnic group would be called out for doing so -- and if that politician were a liberal, the MRC would be at the head of the pack. But because Netanyahu is a popular right-winger, he gets a pass from the MRC.
First Two Sentences Of A Farah Column Are Lies Topic: WorldNetDaily
The first sentence of Joseph Farah's March 19 WorldNetDaily column is a lie:
First, Barack Obama provided taxpayer dollar [sic] to a nonprofit group he assembled to sabotage the re-election campaign of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In fact, the OneVoice Movement -- the group that spearheaded a political movement in Israel to oppose the re-election of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- was founded in 2002, and Obama did not "assemble" it. While the group did receive $350,000 in federal grants, there's no evidence any of it was used in its work in Israel, and State Department officials said the funding stopped in November, ahead of the announcement of the Israeli election.
The second sentence of Farah's column is a lie as well:
He never liked Netanyahu for standing firmly for the security of his country.
Not only does Farah not know this, he cannot know this, and Obama is not on record ever saying such a thing. Therefore, Farah is lying again.
We'd go through the rest of Farah's column, but when the first two sentences are lies, and they're coming from a inveterateliar, we don't need to prove our point any further.
Race-Baiter Colin Flaherty Pops Up At AIM To Promote New Book Topic: Accuracy in Media
Colin Flaherty's new book, "Don't Make the Black Kids Angry," appears to be another race-baiting tome like his last, "White Girl Bleed A Lot" -- the rogue's gallery of mug shots of black men on the book's cover would seem to bear that out. It's also a self-published tome as his earlier book started as; the fact that Flaherty went this route again appears to mean that he's not expecting WorldNetDaily to pick it up, which it did with "White Girl."
So Flaherty must go downmarket to find someone to promote his race-baiting. Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid obliges in a March 19 article, in which he lets Flaherty rant that the racial situation in Ferguson, Mo., is about nothing more than traffic tickets:
Colin Flaherty, an award winning reporter and author of Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it, says that what happened in Ferguson was a carefully orchestrated hoax. He notes how in an amazing turnabout, the false claims about an unprovoked murder of a young black man became complaints about too many traffic tickets for black people.
“We now know the Ferguson riots were all about racist traffic tickets and not the relentless white racism and violence that killed yet another black person,” Flaherty notes. “The greatest bait and switch of our generation and few reporters even seemed to notice. Why would they? They are used to it by now.
“First they told us about ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ When that turned out to be a lie, they told us about the Gentle Giant. It continued for months, one lie after another, each discarded, replaced and sometimes recycled.” Flaherty reminds us of several of the lies. We were told that Michael Brown was shot in the back, that he was minding his own business, and trying to surrender.
It turned out, according to the DOJ, that Ferguson was all about traffic tickets. “Funny: At the time, no one mentioned the traffic tickets that now stand with the firehoses and police dogs of Selma as icons of racist oppression,” Flaherty notes.
The facts were such that the Attorney General had to grudgingly admit what many others had been saying from day one. “The facts of the death and the fairy tale that followed were all concocted, spoon fed to a willing press corps that did nothing but ask for more,” he points out.
Then, suddenly, in another diversion from the essential truth of what happened, the media picked up on another narrative—that blacks were the victims of too many traffic tickets. “The day after the Attorney General’s confession, the manufactured outrage of Chris Cuomo of CNN was on full display as he and the Brown family attorney railed against the injustice of too many traffic tickets,” commented Flaherty.
Of course, like a lot of thingsFlahertysays, he's being dishonest to promote his race-baiting. Traffic tickets were the symptom; official racial bias was the disease.
The DOJ report showed that Ferguson police routinely violated the constitutional rights of black citizens by stopping drivers without reasonable suspicion, making arrests without probable cause and using excessive force. Ferguson police officers also sent out racist emails, including one showing a bare chested group of dancing women apparently in Africa with the caption, “Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.”
Why do we get the feeling that's one email Flaherty would not have any reservations in sending out to his friends?
The fact that people like Flaherty pretend that the only racists in America are black is one reason things like Ferguson happened. But as long as Flaherty can find an outlet, however increasingly far-right that it may be, he'll continue to spout his racial know-nothingness and pretend he's some kind of expert.
When Barack Obama is asked about mass conspiracy and wrongdoing at the VA and he responds by saying that he just found out about it from watching the evening news, there’s only two concise ways to view that explanation. Mr. Obama, you’re either incompetent or a liar. There’s really no other way to spin that, and I’m not sure which one’s worse.
The question I ask is why does Obama make it a priority to go after American citizens and crush them as though they were enemies of the state? On the flip side, why does he cozy up to the Castro regime in Cuba, the mullahs in Iran, and let the atrocities of ISIS, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups continue day after day? Why does he paint the entire police force in the U.S. with a broad brush and insinuate that they are “racists”?
It should be obvious to everyone by now that Mayor Rudy Giuliani was right when he said that Barack Obama does not love this country. Add it up, folks. Now who in Washington has the guts to do something about it?
In this time of increasingly distinct lines being drawn between Americans who recognize the abject wickedness of this administration and its enablers and those who do not, it is profoundly sad that Obama’s presence in Selma was further dignified by some who ought to know better. Obama, his foul wife and their spawn were joined in Selma by a delegation that included former President George W. Bush, former first lady Laura Bush, around 100 members of Congress and other dignitaries.
Yes, Obama profaned the anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma with his very presence, because he is a liar and a fraud who has actually harmed race relations in America and under whom the lot of black Americans has become substantially worse. In character, he is the antithesis of those who suffered and struggled during the Civil Rights Movement.
The irony that punctuates this Selma travesty is the fact that since Obama self-identifies as black and is recognized as such, his attendance supposedly lent more significance to the event than if he had not been a person “of color.”
Only the talk-show hosts and a few intrepid commentators have it right: Obama’s latent anti-Semitism is coming to the fore. In fact, it’s no longer latent – if it ever were. It’s open. It’s active. It’s visible for all to see.
There’s one tiny Jewish state in the world – and that’s apparently one too many for Obama.
Some people think Obama’s a Muslim, and that’s why he’s always bending figuratively and sometimes literally to our sworn enemies. Some people believe he’s a Christian, even though he doesn’t attend church, read the Bible or share the typical Christian’s concern for Israel’s survival.
Still, even among that latter group, there are many who wonder what sort of Christian could attend a church for 20 years where the sermons often involved blasphemous attacks on America, and where 9/11 was justified as a case of America’s finally getting its comeuppance.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. It’s time that we stop mincing words and call it like it is. We have a president who lied his way into the White House and continues to lie while in office. He is not a Christian. He is a Muslim, through his father and given his Islamic education as a child, as well as his continuing association with black-Muslim despots, Jew-haters like Rev. Louis Farrakhan and a host of others who are well-known for their racism and bigotry. This explains how he acts and does not act with regard to Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the rest of us. Thus far, in the media only Andrea Tantaros of Fox News has raised the issue of Obama’s apparent anti-Semitism, suggesting Obama is a racist and an anti-Semite, plain and simple.
Americans are realizing that Obama’s arrogance and his hatred of the military, like his ambitions for “transformative actions,” know no bounds. What we do not yet know is what price our politicians will pay in 2016 for ignoring their constitutional duty to impeach and remove this increasingly dangerous impostor.
Finally! MRC (Briefly) Mentions O'Reilly Honesty Scandal Topic: Media Research Center
This week marked the first time in two weeks that the Media Research Center has made even an oblique reference to the growing controversy over the accuracy of statements Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has made about his reporting.
A March 16 post by Kyle Drennen grumbles that NBC's Chuck Todd praised how his network handled similar allegations against news anchor Brian Williams while Fox tried to deflect the accusations against O'Reilly by running a "political campaign." Drennen comments no further on O'Reilly.
A March 17 MRC item by Jordan Ecarma is focused on repeating Barney Frank's criticism of Hillary Clinton's email controversy. Almost as an afterthough, Ecarma noted that Frank was asked "if he was 'enjoying' the current controversy surrounding O’Reilly. The TV host was recently accused of lying about or exaggerating his war experiences, similar to the revelations that crumbled the reputation of longtime NBC anchor Brian Williams." Like Drennen, Ecarma does nothing further with it.
Previous to these posts, the last mention of the O'Reilly scandal at the MRC was on March 2, and that was to attack George Soros for funding groups that have highlighted it.
By contrast, the MRC couldn't say often enough that Williams was a liar despite doing basically the same thing O'Reilly has been proven to have done.
WND's Chumley Freaks Out About EPA Shower Grant Topic: WorldNetDaily
Cheryl Chumley's March 18 WorldNetDaily article ominously begins: "The Environmental Protection Agency’s latest regulatory push seems to be aimed at monitoring water usage in the nation’s hotels, with the aim of getting guests to 'change [their] behavior,' the text of a federal grant reads."
But rather than actually quoting from the text of said grant, she quotes Rush Limbaugh claiming to read from it, then fearmongering, "The EPA is going to monitor the length of your showers. My point is, if this ever really happens, this not going to stop at hotels. You’re going to have one of these in your house."
If Chumley had bothered to read the grant itself -- which is for a mere $15,000 -- she would know it says no such thing. There is nothing about a "regulatory push" or any mandatory directive; the goal is to "explore the market potential" of a device that would "provide hotel guests with the ability to monitor their daily water online or using a smartphone app, and will assist hotel guest in modifying their behavior to help conserve water."
Chumley's fearmongering was reinforced by a photo accompanying her article of a shower head with a ... thing attached to it:
Actually, that thing is not that non-existent EPA-mandated flow meter -- the grant aims to create a "small size" device. As this website illustratea, it appears to be a filter that removes chlorine from shower water and replaces it with vitamin C.
Given WND's promotion of fluoride conspiracies and editor Joseph Farah's paranoid aversion to fluoride as a "poison" that "accumulates in your body," this is a device we'd be likely to find on the showers in his house.
Newsmax has longhad a thing for Ed Klein, promoting his dubious, unsubstantiated claims attacking Hillary Clinton and President Obama despite his history of being repeatedly discredited.
Newsmax keeps the lovefest going in a March 14 article by Todd Beamon touting Klein's (unsubstantiated, of course) claim that the Obama administration is trying to stop Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016. Beamon gave Klein a pass on the lack of substantiation, choosing instead to boost Klein's media cred by noting that he "Klein, who worked as the editor of The New York Times Magazine from 1977 to 1987 and as an editor for Newsweek" and where his previous Obama-bashing books placed on the New York Times' best-seller list (as if sales equated to crediiblity).
A March 16 Newsmax article by Jason Devaney regurgitated Rush Limbaugh's own regurgitation of Klein's claim that Obama is sabogaging Clinton's presidential campaign, though Klein's name is curiously absent from the article. Devaney doesn't explain why something is newsworthy merely because Limbaugh utters it, which is the tone of his article.
WND Buries Its Financial Interest In 'Blood Moons' Battle Topic: WorldNetDaily
An unbylined March 18 WorldNetDaily article is a lengthy attack on pastor John Hagee for allegedly stealing credit for discovering the "blood moons" -- a series of four lunar eclipses that right-wing evangelicals are trying to link to prophecies involving Israel. In fact, WND claims, "The discovery, however, was made by pastor Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries of Bonney Lake, Washington, seven years ago – a finding he has discussed in his church, on Christian television, at public conferences ever since and which he describes in detail in his own bestselling book, 'Blood Moons,' and a bestselling movie of the same name."
But who published Blitz's "bestselling" (WND doesn't back up the claim with any evidence) book and made that "bestselling" movie? WNDdid. That's not disclosed until the 23rd paragraph of the article.
The article quotes WND editor Joseph Farah "giving his opinions" on the situation and trashing Hagee: “If anyone thinks they have the complete blood moons story after reading Hagee’s book or seeing his movie, they are sadly mistaken. Biltz’s book and movie contain far more data from NASA and a much more thorough biblical and prophetic analysis. That’s not sour grapes on my part. That is just the unvarnished truth.”
The article also makes the awkward admission that WND "heavily promoted Hagee’s book" along with its own work from Blitz, but insisted that it did so 'because it would bring attention to the subject matter." AS of this writing, Hagee's book is still for sale at the WND store. WND also concedes that "Hagee briefly served as a weekly WND columnist in 2002."
The financial motivation aside, it's actually a fairly well-written article by WND standards -- it actually gets a quote from Hagee about how he found about the "blood moons." But it somehow doesn't warrant having a byline, while Bob Unruh regularly gets one for his egregiously biased and falsehood-filled stenography. Strange.
UPDATE: A new article states that WND has sent a letter to Hagee demanding that he publicly retract his claim to be the "discoverer" of the "blood moons" idea.
MRC: Netanyahu's Racist Attack On Arabs Is OK Because Arabs Are Anti-Semitic Topic: Media Research Center
When media outlets highlighted the racist nature of Benjamin Netanyahu's ranting about Arabs voting in the Israeli election in an attempt to boost right-wing turnout that would support him, the Media Research Center took exception.
The MRC seems to know that Netanyahu's remarks are indefensible. So it's taking a diversionary tack by arguing that israeli Arabs are anti-Semitic.
Curtis Houck complained hat CNN's Christiane Amanpour noted criticism within Israel of Netanyahu's Arab attack, then added: "While Amanpour was mounting a full defense of Arab-Israelis, she failed to cite the fact that the Arab parties that combined to form a joint list for the election include members who have some radical and arguably anti-Semitic policies themselves."
Clay Waters follows in those footsteps by dismissing criticism by New York Tiems writers of Netanyahu by asserting "Speaking of racism, official Palestinian Authoritarian descriptions of Jews as apes and pigs was left unremarked upon by the hypocritical Times."
Waters then huffed, "Israel must count itself fortunate indeed that the liberals on the Times editorial page know what's best for a country thousands of miles away and surrounded by enemies who want it wiped off the map."
Meanwhile, Netanyahu must count himself fortunate that American right-wingers like those at the MRC will give him a pass on his racism by making the lame equivocation that his enemies are supposedly even more racist.
The MRC has so little problem with Netanyahu's racism, in fact, that it's running a promotion A March 18 email to its mailing list complains that MSNBC "went out of their way to attack the sitting prime minister" by having on a guest who highlighted the racist attack, as described in an item by Kyle Drennen.The MRC then promoted its anti-NBC petition.
At no point does the MRC deny that Netanyahu's words are racist; they are simply attacking anyone who points that out.
WND's Movie Reviewer: 'Cinderella' Lacks Reminders Of 'God's Truth' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily movie reviewer Drew Zahn likes to impose his (and his eemployer's) right-wing Christian agenda on the movies he reviews. His review of the new "Cinderella" movie is no exception. Zahn is a little unhappy that the film doesn't try to clobber young girls over the head with a Christian worldview:
I do have another note of caution, which stems from the fact this is a column not about family-friendly films, but about worldview.
This version of “Cinderella,” for all its commendable virtues, does not flow from a biblical perspective, but offers a moral tale out of a more humanistic persuasion, with a little Disney magic thrown in.
Case in point: At a key point in the set-up, Cinderella’s birth mother asks her, “Who looks after us?”
Now, biblically that answer would be “God,” but Cinderella answers, “Fairy godmothers.”
It’s a minor point, to be sure, but illustrative of the reality that the moral lessons of “Cinderella” are not seasoned with God’s truth.
At another point, Cinderella is told, “This great secret will see you though all perils life has to offer: Have courage and be kind.”
Courage and kindness are virtues, but to these great life questions Cinderella is asked, the answers she’s getting clearly are not coming from the Westminster Catechism.
You might remember that Zahn gave a thumbs-down to the Disney film "Tangled" because it teaches kids how to think for themselves.
'Dancing With The Stars' Is Bigger News At CNS Than GOP Congressman's Resignation Over Corruption Topic: CNSNews.com
Rep. Aaron Schock was a rising star in Republican circles, and CNSNews.com had no problem promoting him. Last September, for instances, CNS devoted original articles to Schock pontificating about how Christians are "in the majority" in the U.S. and that President Obama does not need congressional authorization to take military action against ISIL. In November, CNS penned an article on Schock attacking Obamacare.
Schock resigned his congressional seat over questions about his lavish spending, but CNS is not terribly interested in reporting it. So much so, in fact, that it does not even consider the event to be front-page news.
A screenshot of the top of CNS' front page taken at around 6:30 p.m. ET on March 17 -- a couple hours after Schock's resignation -- shows that a breaking-news banner was devoted to the Israeli election but no mention of Schock's resignation. There is, however, an article about the new season of "Dancing with the Stars." So, apparently, CNS considers a TV show about dancing celebrities to be more important than a congressman's resignation.
Another screenshot of the front page taken around 10 a.m. ET March 18 shows a breaking-news banner for an attack on a museum in Tunisia -- but, again, no Schock. The "Dancing With the Stars" article has fallen off the list, but this update, like the earlier one, includes the latest rant from dishonest anti-abortion extremist Lila Rose.
CNS subscribes to the Associated Press, and it did publish an AP article on Schock's resignation on March 17 -- it simply did not think the story warranted front-page coverage. But unless you burrow way down into CNS' Washington page, you won't find it.
The only original coverage of Schock's resignation to be found on any MRC website is a post on the MRCTV blog.
It seems that CNS will report on Republican members of Congress only if they are feeding the agenda of CNS and its parent, the Media Research Center. And if you are corrupt and have to resign because of it, CNS will cover it up to preserve the Republican brand.
WND Adds Benham Brothers As Columnists, Downplays Their Anti-Gay Remarks Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily couldn't be prouder to have David and Jason Benham as columnists, as the March 13 WND article announcing their arrival makes clear. After all, their anti-gay values mesh so very well with thoseofWND's.
Of course, WND does its best to pretend the Benhams really aren't anti-gay at all; they just believe in "biblical marriage." Let the whitewashing begin:
As WND reported, home-flippers David and Jason Benham were elated when a production company first approached them about starring in their own reality TV show.
Eventually five networks made offers, with HGTV submitting the best: six one-hour episodes, straight to TV, with no pilot episode necessary.
The show was to be called “Flip it Forward” and would feature the Benham brothers transforming fixer-uppers into dream homes for families.
As Christians, they felt graced by God.
Then it crashed. A liberal “watchdog” organization made a campaign of what HGTV already knew – that the brothers believed in the standards established in the Bible regarding marriage, life and more.
It came out in the media, however, as “anti-gay.” And “anti-choice.”
But the show was canceled because of pressure from liberal and progressive interests.
WND will never tell you that the Benhams -- sons of anti-abortion extremist Flip Benham -- are as anti-gay as advertised. Right Wing Watch has documented the Benhams calling homosexuals "destructive," "vile," and controlled by "demonic forces."
The Benhams' inaugural column invokes some of that anti-gay sentiment, if toned down. They complain that "openly gay former major leaguer" Billy Bean "Bean was invited to openly express his views on homosexuality as Major League Baseball’s ambassador of inclusion" while "Daniel Murphy of the New York Mets, a devout Christian, was told he could only talk baseball after he respectfully offered his thoughts when asked about the homosexual lifestyle."
Yep, the Benhams and WND were made for each other.