Reminder: MRC's Tally of Trump's 'Negative' Media Coverage Is Bogus Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is at it again, as Rich Noyes writes:
The liberal media’s war against President Trump was as fierce as ever during the first four months of 2018, but the onslaught appears to be for naught: In the face of massive and hostile coverage from ABC, CBS and NBC, Trump’s overall job approval rating actually rose, from 37 percent in mid-December to roughly 43 percent at the end of April.
The Media Research Center studied all broadcast evening news coverage of the President from January 1 through April 30, and found 90 percent of the evaluative comments about Trump were negative — precisely the same hostile tone we documented in 2017.
But unlike last year, when the RealClearPolitics average depicted a slow but steady erosion in the President’s job approval numbers, the public has apparently warmed to Trump in 2018, even as the networks are as frosty as ever.
But as we've pointed out everytime the MRC promotes this so-called study, it's utterly bogus and meaningless, and here's why:
It focuses only on a tiny sliver of news -- the evening newscasts on the three networks -- and suggests it's indicative of all media.
It pretends there was never any neutral coverage of Trump. Indeed, the study explicitly rejects neutral coverage -- even though that's arguable the bulk of news coverage -- dishonestly counting "only explicitly evaluative statements."
It fails to take into account the stories themselves and whether negative coverage is deserved or admit that negative coverage is the most accurate way to cover a given story.
It again fails to provide the raw data or the actual statements it evaluated so its work could be evaluated by others. If the MRC's work was genuine and rigorous, wouldn't it be happy to provide the data to back it up?
Noyes even manages to mislead about Trump's poll numbers. As FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver points out, the 43 percent approval that Noyes cites is close to Trump's ceiling; his approval rating has never ventured out of the range of 36 percent to 44 percent -- the narrowest range in the first 500 days of a presidency in the history of modern polling.
But then, providing an accurate record of media coverage of Trump is not the MRC's goal -- promoting a pro-Trump, anti-media agenda is. Which means that MRC chief Brent Bozell couldn't be prouder that Trump referenced his bogus "research" in a tweet.
WND Columnist Seems To Think Only Americans Should Be Allowed To Play Baseball Topic: WorldNetDaily
Yes, Andy Schlafly really does complain there are too many foreigners playing baseball in his May 1 WorldNetDaily column:
Baseball has been in a slow slide in fan attendance, and the dismal attendance last year was the lowest in 15 years. But the particularly poor start this year should spark some soul-searching about what has happened to our national pastime.
The rules of baseball have not significantly changed over the past century, but the players certainly have. Today baseball has become a sport for foreigners playing on workers’ “P-1” visas, which are every bit as objectionable as the “H-1B” visas Phyllis Schlafly and other Trump supporters have complained about for years.
Roughly a quarter of Major League Baseball consists today of foreign-born players, and an even higher percentage of foreigners have flooded the minor leagues. Today, some minor league rosters look more like a World Cup soccer team than a baseball squad.
Owners have figured out that they can sign foreign players to smaller bonuses, and have greater strings attached, rather than give nice contracts to American youngsters. The foreigners do not play baseball any better than Americans, and few of the foreign players are genuine Hall of Fame candidates.
In sharp contrast with a quarter-century ago, every baseball team today has a high-paid foreign player. Free traders brag about this as a model that Americans should imitate in other industries, but the reality is that fans prefer rooting for hometown heroes like Lou Gehrig, who grew up in New York City, played baseball for Columbia University and then became the “Pride of the Yankees.”
Jackie Robinson, and Willie Mays and Hank Aaron after him, inspired a generation of young African-Americans to become baseball stars like them. That motivation is gone today with the deluge of foreign players on P-1 visas, and without enough black baseball stars hardly any young African-Americans play the sport anymore.
While major league teams have an oversupply of foreign players, and even more in the minor leagues, nearly one-third today have only one black player on their roster. Last year there were fewer black players in Major League Baseball than 1958, shortly after Jackie Robinson retired.
Baseball was a fabulous way to inspire multiple generations of boys to play a healthy game that emphasizes the virtues of teamwork, patience, discipline and following rules. But something is lost in the translation, and the motivation is lost, when the visa program is abused to reward foreigners rather than American youth.
Actually, Major League Baseball is a meritocracy in which the best players play no matter where they're from.
One gets the impression that 50 years ago, Schlafly would be complaining there were too many black players in baseball.
As it did last month, CNSNews.com's coverage of April's job numbers downplays the number of new jobs created -- a sign it doesn't consider that number impressive enough -- in favor of cherry-picked stats that make President Trump look better.
Instead, Susan Jones' main story touts how "Not since May 2001, 17 years ago, has the number of unemployed Americans been this low." It's not until the ninth paragraph that Jones mentions that there has been no real change in the labor force participation rate under Trump -- a number it heavily emphasized when Barack Obama was president when it was similarly stagnant. The jobs-created number didn't get mentioned until the 10th paragraph.
This story joined by the usual Trump-era sidebars by Terry Jeffrey on government employment and manufacturing jobs. The latter attacks Obama for "a one-month decline of 289,000" in manufacturing jobs the month he took office but doesn't mention that the economy was in the midst of cratering into a major recession at the time; Jeffrey also credits Trump for 304,000 manufacturing jobs since he took office but not the hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs created under Obama since the end of the recession -- a fact illustrated by the chart accompanying his article.
An article by Michael W. Chapman touts how "The national unemployment rate for blacks in April 2018 was 6.6%, the lowest it has been since the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started compiling such data in 1972, some 46 years ago," but he fails to mention that the rate decline is merely the continuation of a trend begun under Obama.
Tellingly, Jones waited three days to do an article offering a closer look at the labor force participation rate and how it hasn't really changed under Trump -- something she would never have waited to do under Trump. The article's headline is quick to hype that the stagnant participation rate is driven largely by baby boomers retiring -- also a fact CNS was reluctant to admit during the Obmaa years.
WND Columnists Still Trying to Defend Bill Cosby Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's columnists have a soft spot for Bill Cosby, even after allegations of sexual assault surfaced -- for example, Jesse Lee Peterson insisted the charges were part of a liberal conspiracy against him.
Now that Cosby has actually been convicted on a sexual assault charge, WND columnists are still trying to defend him. Carl Jackson took a Peterson-esque conspiracy route, claiming Cosby was targeted because he made speeches critical of the black community and lamenting that nondisclosure agreements are coming back to bite him:
Initially, they were hard to believe, hard to fathom, but as witnesses came forward in larger numbers, the accusations became impossible to dismiss. Having said all of that, Bill Cosby’s conviction at his retrial would not have been possible if two things hadn’t occurred:
If the New York Times had not obtained and released Cosby’s deposition transcript from his 2005 testimony regarding Andrea Constand’s civil suit against him. Ultimately, Constand was rewarded $3.4 million after signing a confidentiality agreement that banned both parties from releasing the documents. Apparently, the transcript itself was never sealed despite the agreement.
Secondly, Cosby’s conviction in the retrial wouldn’t have been possible if Judge O’Neill, who presided over the first trial that resulted in a hung jury, hadn’t allowed testimony of five accusers with unfounded claims to tip the scale in favor of the prosecution. According to the New York Post, criminal defense attorney Stuart Slotnick, who has followed the trial for two years, believes there are “strong grounds for appeal,” since it was clear the prosecution couldn’t convict Cosby based on Andrea Constand’s testimony alone. In addition to her testimony, Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele used testimony from other accusers – who, again, offered no proof or evidence – to establish a pattern of behavior from Cosby. This could be problematic for the prosecution because Bill Cosby was never charged in any case regarding the accusers that testified against him. Judge O’Neill never explained why he allowed their testimony.
In a court of law, it shouldn’t matter what you think about Cosby; what should matter is what you can prove. Like it or not, that’s our system. Furthermore, let’s be honest, had Cosby not began advocating for family values in the black community, none of this would’ve ever been exposed. In the end, it isn’t my goal to defend Cosby’s despicable acts, if his accusers are telling the whole truth. If they are being totally truthful, Cosby has no one to blame but himself for his legal problems. However, it’s clear to me that nondisclosure agreements mean nothing in the era of the #MeToo movement, and unproven testimony from witnesses is enough to put you away for life. The latter especially should disturb us all.
Barry Farber, meanwihle, wants President Trump to pardon Cosby and insrtead be sentenced to provide uplifting messages to people:
Why not admit it? I want President Trump to pardon Bill Cosby.
And, yes, I’m aware of all the rapacious evil I’m abetting and the glorious victory over those forces I’m seeking to annul. And I still want Trump to pardon Cosby.
Bill Cosby’s entire life up to these criminal adventures with women is one huge mitigating circumstance. Bill Cosby’s contribution to the betterment of America is unique. Please don’t tumble into that common error of calling somebody or something “rather unique” or “kind of unique.” “Unique” is an absolute, and calling Cosby unique means there’s no one like him, past or present. Cosby mobilized the healing power of television to deflect rising tension between the two major races, and his life and work gave rise, oddly enough, to good solid moral messages whose penetrating power dwarfs those of any sermon in any church, synagogue or ashram.
Bill Cosby’s uniqueness in his contribution to us calls for unique treatment from us. But should we therefore annul his conviction and apologize to him? Certainly not!
In return for no jail time, Cosby will agree to speaking engagements before appropriate audiences of young people. He will reach those audiences with a strong message on building a life that’s praiseworthy and stays praiseworthy lest it all come crashing down on them as it did on him!
Farber doesn't seem to understand that Cosby's "praiseworthy" public life was revealed as a sham through his private behavior, making any uplifting message he might offer now moot and hypocritical.
Not A Good Sign: Ed Klein Endorses Corsi's Trump Book Topic: Newsmax
In promoting Jerome Corsi's new pro-Trump conspiracy book fearmongering about the "Deep State," Newsmax has to sidestep the elephant in the room: Corsi's utter lack of crediblity as a diehard Obama birther who worked for WorldNetDaily and currently works for the whacked-out Alex Jones operation Infowars. So it apparently has to take endorsement for Corsi where it can.
Which brings us to this anonymously written April 30 Newsmax article:
Edward Klein once worked for one of the most liberal media organizations in America, The New York Times.
He was not just a reporter, but served as an editor of the powerful New York Times magazine.
His establishment credentials were incredible: Senior editor at Newsweek. Contributing editor at Vanity Fair.
He was the darling of the media world — until he told the truth.
When his two runaway New York Times best-sellers hit exposing Barack Obama, he was immediately shunned by the media establishment.
They turned on him because he wrote two books on Obama — "The Amateur" and "Blood Feud" — considered among the biggest exposés of the Obama years.
Now Ed Klein is endorsing a new book about President Donald Trump and the "Deep State" war against him.
It's Jerome Corsi's new "Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump."
Here is what truth-teller Edward Klein says:
"'Killing the Deep State' is an explosive must-read that not only exposes the insidious nature and goals of the shadow government, but also provides a road map to ensuring that the will of the people — through President Trump — succeeds."
The problem here is that Klein is not a truth-teller. He was not "shunned" by the "media establishment" because he told the truth about Obama; he was shunned because he couldn't back any of it up with on-the-record evidence and frequently uses anonymous, unverifiable sources for his most salacious claims.Oh, and one of the reasons he lost his job as an editor of the New York Times magazine is because it published a fabricated story under his watch.
Nevertheless, Newsmax keeps trying to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear:
Klein knows the consequences of telling the truth.
Now Jerome Corsi knows it, too.
He's been virtually banned by all the major TV networks — CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox News refuses to put him on air or discuss his book.
MRC Gushes Over Bret Baier (Who Fed The MRC Fake News) Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Curtis Houck did some serious fanboying over Fosx News' Bret Baier in an April 26 post:
Former FBI Director and new author James Comey has spent the past 12 days on his book tour promoting A Higher Loyalty, the supposed greatness of Comey himself and the lack thereof on the part of President Trump.
However, no prior interview compared to his Thursday hit on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report as host Bret Baier offered a masterfully tough tour de force akin to interviews of yesteryear by the late Tim Russert.
Comey denied that despite having written a memo exonerating her and emphasized that it’s crucial for investigators to have an idea of where a probe that ended up lasting almost a year.
It was soon after that Baier showed his mettle, telling Comey that “you already knew that she had been telling, whatever you want to say, lies, mistruths about this investigation of what — and how she handled those emails” and played a clip of Comey stating just that in congressional testimony in July 2016.
What made Baier’s interview successful but damaging for Comey was his short but pointed questions that didn’t come across as attitudinal or snarky. One such moment was when Baier broached the subject of the Steele dossier.
Baier then held Comey’s feet to the fire over the leak of the Trump Tower meeting between Comey and Trump over the dossier. The FNC host ran through the gambit of possible leakers and Comey denied all of them. Comey added that he made no attempt to find out who did it because the dossier was an “unclassified, public document.”
Without a doubt, the most devastating exchange focused on Comey’s leaking of his memos to friend, former FBI employee, and law professor Daniel Richman. The FNC host marvelously exposed Comey’s refusal to inform lawmakers that Richman was anything but a private citizen and instead a former “FBI special government employee.”
This was far from the first instance in which Baier grilled high-profile figures in the news. In March and August 2016, he grilled Hillary Clinton during the height of the campaign in ways that put his competitors to shame. He also hammered then-Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon on Mary 25, 2016 in a similar fashion that you can read about here.
That's some serious gushing. Note that Houck doesn't cite any examples of Baier asking tough questions of a Republican or conservative.
Houck also doesn't mention that Baier is also responsible for a fake-news story the MRC heavily promoted just before the 2016 election -- the anonymously sourced claim that Hillary Clinton was facing imminent indictment. The MRC ranted that media outlets who didn't report the story in a manner to its liking were engaging in a "cover-up," and MRC chief Brent Bozell declared that "We will report developments on this continuing cover-up every hour from here on out."
None of those hours, however, were devoted to the fact that the story turned out to be false, and Baier retracted it. The MRC never told its readers the story was bogus.
But then, Houck and the MRC never holds conservatives to the same journalistic and ethical standards it holds reporters who aren't conservative -- and Houck will never praise a "liberal media" reporter for asking tough questions of a conservative the way he gushed over the Baier-Comey interview.
No, Joseph Farah, Calif. Bill Would Not Ban the Bible Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah freaks out in his April 22 column:
Ideas have consequences – and so do laws.
In its zeal to ensure that no transgender person in California is ever confronted by any expression that might not entirely affirm that person’s feeling, the state is set to ban all psychological or spiritual counseling contrary to a person’s claimed sexual orientation as well as the sale of any merchandise – presumably including books – that might offer a different point of view.
Obviously, that could very well include the Bible, which does not recognize more than two sexual identities – male and female.
Is it a stretch to say that AB 2943 could result in a ban of the Bibles and books that do not affirm transgenderism?
Not at all.
The bill explicitly prohibits the sale of printed materials that do just that.
Meanwhile, religion blogger Warren Throckmorton did what Farah couldn't be bothered to do -- contact the sponsor of AB 2943, Assemblyman Evan Low:
I wrote Assemblyman Evan Low to ask if AB 2943 prohibited the sale of books or videos promoting conversion therapy by therapists. I also asked if the amended law would prohibit the sale of religious books or videos which advocate that gays should change their sexual orientation by religious means. Finally, I asked if AB 2943 prohibited the sale of books or videos promoting celibate behavior for gays as a way to adhere to religious beliefs.
Low’s Communications Director Maya Polon wrote back to answer all three questions negatively. According to the sponsor, the bill doesn’t relate to books or speech. I followed up by asking if any of the unlawful business practices has ever led to the banning of any books or speech. She wrote back to say that she wasn’t aware of any instance where books about any those practices have been banned.
A few days ago Evan Low responded to this issue via Twitter:
A church or individual may still practice conversion therapy if they do so without charging for this fraudulent service. It does not ban bibles nor does it ban the basic sales of books as some would have you believe.
Throckmorton concluded: "What makes me think this could be a reasonable response to the harm reparative therapy can do is that there is nothing in the bill that stops a person from trying to make personal changes outside of a professional context. Furthermore, I don’t see how the bill prohibits counselors from helping clients who pursue celibacy. However, it does remove the stamp of approval of the mental health professions for change therapy."
The rest of Farah's column is simply regurgitating the bogus alarmism about AB 2943 from anti-gay groups like Liberty Counsel and Save California. Not exactly the journalism WND needs to regain its lost credibility and income.
CNS Demonstrates How To Mislead With A Chart Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey writes in an April 25 article:
The federal government paid a “bed rate” of $127.82 per day to house each illegal alien detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in fiscal 2016, according to ICE data published in a new report by the Government Accountability Office.
Even if you do not count the extra day in that leap year, that works out to $46,654.30 for each detention bed occupied by an illegal alien for 365 days.
The approximately $46,654 it cost to house a detained illegal alien for 365 days in fiscal 2016 was approximately $104 more than the average income for Americans 15 and older that year—which, according to Census Bureau Table PINC-01, was $46,550.
WND Givves Diamond & Silk A Pass On Their False Claim Of Being 'Censored' By Facebook Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND was in full stenography mode for pro-Trump duo Diamond & Silk in an anonymously written April 26 article:
Social media stars Diamond and Silk, the hilarious duo that support the president, testified before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday on allegations of bias against conservatives by Facebook – and their impassioned statements frequently elicited smiles from spectators.
The two, whose real names are Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, said if Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had been censoring the speech of anyone on the left, “Democrats would be in the streets right now, marching and calling him all types of racist.”
Some Democrats criticized the decision to hold the hearing, and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., even called it “stupid and ridiculous.”
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., suggested that the two women were making a great deal of money off the social media network.
“You ladies are very impressive to me,” Johnson said. “You have taken something and moved forward with it, exercising your First Amendment rights, and you’ve made a ton of money off Facebook, is that correct?”
“Absolutely not,” Hardaway shot back. “Facebook censored us for six months.”
But Johnson continued, “The point I’m trying to make is you all have been bashing Facebook and you’ve been making a ton of money, isn’t that correct?”
Hardaway replied: “We didn’t bash Facebook. We brought the light on how Facebook has been censoring conservative voices like ours. … They won’t let us monetize on Facebook. They stopped it for six months, 29 days. They limited our page.”
Richardson added, “And YouTube did also by demonetizing 95 percent of our videos for no reason at all, deeming it as hate speech.”
Johnson kept pressing the women, noting that they “still sell merchandise.”
“Even if we sell merchandise that don’t have anything to do with Facebook,” Hardaway responded. “Facebook censored our free speech, and shame on the ones that don’t even see that we have been censored.”
Just one problem: Diamond & Silk were never "censored" on Facebook. As ThinkProgress documents, the duo's Facebook page shows that total interactions have remained steady over the past year, which inclues the six-month period of time that they claim they were "censored."
WND also takes Diamond & Silk at their word when they claim their payment from the Trump campaign, designated in campaign records as "field consulting," was actually reimbursement for travel expenses. The Trump campaign now claims it was a travel reimbursement.
NEW ARTICLE: Keeping the Hagiography Alive Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center aggressively pushes back against anyone who suggests Ronald Reagan may have had symptoms of Alzheimer's disease while president -- even the president's own son. Read more >>
WND Columnist: Liberals Are 'Sexually Obsessed' With Swarthy-Looking Immigrants Topic: WorldNetDaily
It’s hard to feel sorry for liberals when they reap the results of the policies they force on the rest of us.
A middle-aged woman who campaigned against the deportation of migrants from her native Sweden was raped by the very refugees she advocates for.
She met two Afghan teens on the street, outside a bar – no slut-shaming, please – and voluntarily accompanied them to their taxpayer-funded pad. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Behind the European obsession with importing tall, dark, Middle-Eastern young men are hordes of horny, menopausal, Social Justice Warriors (SJW).
“Bohemian witches” or “tie-dye hags” is how one risqué, Swedish, YouTube commentator calls this degenerate distaff.
Left-liberal women (like Chancellor Angela Merkel) certainly have a fixation – could it be erotic? – with rescuing dark, handsome, exotic-looking strangers.
Judging from their irrational, histrionic protests against President Trump’s travel ban, we appear destined to live or die by these females’ hormones (or their replaced hormones).
Egalitarianism, the goal of the left and the political right, rests on the blunting of male-female differences. In the service of egalitarian sameness, the male-vs.-female biological imperatives are rapidly, if reflexively, being dissolved.
Survival, however, has a biological dimension. A submissive, effete civilization made up of men like Mr. Hauken will not endure.
The repulsive specter of Karsten Nordal Hauken just about turning the other cheek to the man who spread both his cheeks is not an isolated case.
The pale, liberal patriarchy is a pioneer in forever scrutinizing itself for signs of racism and deficits in empathy toward “The Other,” while readily accusing others of the same.
It’s as though liberal men derive erotic pleasure from prostrating themselves to assailants and ceding to racial claims-making.
Could it be that liberal men are driven by a powerful homo-erotic impulsive?
Who knows, but as the example of Nordal Hauken shows, this specimen is queering at a rapid pace.
Attacking Logical Journalistic Decisions as Biased Is What's Wrong With the MRC Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Scott Whitlock seems to think some snark is in order in an April 16 post:
Naturally: CBS Turns to Hillary Clinton’s VP Nominee for Comey Reaction
Who better than Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential nominee to respond to James Comey’s book tour? Tim Kaine and fellow partisan Democrat Adam Schiff were the only politicians brought on CBS This Morning, Monday, to comment on Comey’s hour-long interview on ABC. Co-host John Dickerson tossed this softball to the man who was almost vice president: “Let me ask you about James Comey. Hillary Clinton said he shivved her. How are we supposed to take this new revelation?”
Dickerson offered criticism from Comey, but only when it was about the ex-FBI Director possibly causing Clinton to lose: “He said he had to speak out to make sure there was integrity for her presidency. Is that part of his job as the FBI director?”
Co-host Norah O’Donnell sympathized: “Do you think [Comey reopening the investigation] impacted the election?”
Whitlock seems to think having on the vice presidential candiadte on the ticket whose chance of getting elected was arguably adversely affected by Comey is somehow something only the "liberal media" would do and, this, worthy of his attempted snark. But who better indeed? Why wouldn't a news outlet want to have Kaine on to talk about this?
Whitlock also pretends to be reading O'Donnell's mind by claimed that she "sympathized" with Kaine. But she asked a straightforward question. He later portrayed a question about an interpretation of the Comey interview as pushing "Comey's talking points."
Whitlock's shallow attack pretending to be incisive analysis is a handy demonstration of what's wrong with the MRC. Mind-reading and reflexively assuming that all news outlets that aren't Fox News are deliberately pushing a "liberal media bias" do not make for credible media research, though Whitlock and crew apparently believe otherwise.
Jesse Lee Peterson Being Jesse Lee Peterson Topic: WorldNetDaily
I realized that I’m about the only one who loves black people. Nobody likes blacks’ bad attitude, not even other blacks – but most can’t see that it’s because of their anger, and not the phony illusion of “racism.” “Racism” does not exist, and never has; it’s only a spiritual problem of judgment. Most blacks suffer because they’re immoral. Liberals pretend to care about blacks, but do not love them enough to demand they be morally upright. Instead, blacks’ supposed “allies” demand everyone else get more training and re-education – police, Starbucks employees and white people.
One thing I love about President Trump, whom I call “The Great White Hope,” is that he does not pander to the worst in people – not black radicals, liberal women, illegal aliens or others lost in a mindset of victimhood.
Catering to the anger of these people is like a man trying to please a woman. She will never respect him because she sees he will follow her whims and mood swings, instead of following God. He won’t stand on what’s right, despite her complaints and accusations of him supposedly not loving her. By him rewarding her bad behavior, she’ll only get worse. If they marry, it won’t last. If he ever has children, they’ll turn away from him toward an evil world. This immorality, the weakness of men, will destroy the freedoms of a country.
-- Jesse Lee Peterson, April 22 WorldNetDaily column
CNS Promotes Right-Wing Anti-Pope Francis Book Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com managing editor Michael W. Chapman has been pushing a war on Pope Francis by right-wing Catholics who think he's a little too liberal and unclear on certain issues. Another recent example is an April 10 blog post in which Chapman criticized "the ever-growing confusion and scandal in the Catholic Church created by Pope Francis's ambiguous teachings on divorce, remarriage, and adultery" and touted a "final declaration" by other church clergy and activists "that reaffirms the 2,000-year-old teaching of the church on these matters."
This was followed by an April 17 column that is an excerpt from the anti-Francis book "The Dictator Pope," from the right-wing publishing house Regnery. So the above activists weren't dictating things? Isn't the job of the leader of the Catholic Church to dictate things to a certain extent? The excerpt doesn't get into that, but there was confusion from the start. The book's author is listed on the cover as Marcantonio Colonna, but the CNS byline on the excerpt is Henry Sire, who's listed in his CNS bio as the author of the book. As it turns out, Colonna is Sire's pen name -- and he's such a reactionary that he doesn't believe that the church's Vatican II reforms of the 1960s were legitimate.
The excerpt itself gets off to a misguided start that reflects the author's bias:
The phenomenon of widespread homosexuality among clergy and bishops had been public knowledge since at least 2001, when the Boston Globe began a series of exposés on the clergy sex abuse scandals. The John Jay Report, an investigation commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, published in 2004, found that more than 80 percent of the victims of clergy sexual abuse had been adolescent males. Reports from dioceses around the world—including national bishops’ conferences in Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, the Philippines, India, and most of Europe—found similar results.
The John Jay Report covered the period from 1950 to 2002 and found the complaints had peaked at a period coinciding with the vogue for ignoring or re-writing seminary admission guidelines to allow homosexuals to study and be ordained as priests—the 1960s to the 1980s—a period that can be likened to the Catholic Church’s own internal Sexual Revolution.
As we've pointed out when Bill Donohue of the right-wing Catholic League makes this same basic claim, this is a deliberate misreading of the John Jay report. The researchers stated that no connection was found between homosexual identity and an increased likelihood of sexual abuse and argued that the idea of sexual identity should be separated from the problem of sexual abuse, since one does not have to have a homosexual identity to commit homosexual acts. The John Jay researchers also stated that the reason more than 80 percent of the victims of clergy sexual abuse were adolescent males is because that's who the priests were around a lot of the time, making this in no small part a crime of opportunity rather than one of sexual orientation.
The rest of the excerpt mostly complains that Pope Benedict -- a conservative pope more to the liking of Chapman and Sire/Colonna -- was being blamed in part for the church's slow response to the sexual abuse scandals.
WND's Farah Still Giving Trump's Immorality A Pass As Long As He Takes Orders From Evangelicals Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is still trying to justify evangelicals continuing to support President Trump despite his many, many faults, including credible accusastions of an affair with a porn star. This time, editor Joseph Farah does the honors in his April 24 column ranting about an Atlantic article by Michael Gerson calling out evangelical hypocrisy on Trump. Farah rants:
Yet, he’s beside himself over the harm evangelicals are supposedly doing to their cause and their good name by supporting Trump. It’s the oldest political trick in the book: Tell your opponents to be more like you if they want to be true to their ideals. Tell your opponents they’re tarnishing their image by supporting a flawed human. In other words, be a liberal or don’t get involved in politics.
Because Trump once supported abortion, evangelicals should disown him.
Because Trump committed adultery, evangelicals should renounce him.
Because Trump uses crude and vulgar language, evangelicals should turn away.
Because Trump boasts about his wealth, evangelicals should be appalled.
For an evangelical who went to Wheaton, he doesn’t seem to understand repentance. Crude and vulgar language may be a display of ban manners, but I don’t see where the Bible condemns it as sin.
Repentence isn't an issue here because Trump has provided no evidence he has repented for his past behavior -- at least, Farah has provided none.
But Farah doesn't care about Trump's immoral behavior as long as he delivers the goods, a point he has made before and makes abundantly clear once more:
“The moral convictions of many evangelical leaders have become a function of their partisan identification,” Gerson writes, my guess is, not while looking in the mirror. “This is not mere gullibility; it is utter corruption. Blinded by political tribalism and hatred for their political opponents, these leaders can’t see how they are undermining the causes to which they once dedicated their lives. Little remains of a distinctly Christian public witness.”
Not true at all. If evangelicals walked away from the president who has done more in 18 months to support their causes than any other recent president did, save possibly Ronald Reagan, no one would ever take them seriously again. Even Gerson acknowledges elsewhere in his insipid and angry piece that Trump has embraced evangelical leaders and their causes.
Now, let me explain why evangelicals love Trump. He listens to them, and he acts accordingly.
End of story.
And for good measure, Farah attacks Gerson for accepting evolution as fact:
Gerson gives himself away when he states: “Evolution is a fact. It is objectively true based on overwhelming evidence. By denying this, evangelicals made their entire view of reality suspect. They were insisting, in effect, that the Christian faith requires a flight from reason.”
“There is no meaningful theological difference between creation by divine intervention and creation by natural selection; both are consistent with belief in a purposeful universe, and with serious interpretation of biblical texts,” he adds. “Evangelicals have placed an entirely superfluous stumbling block before their neighbors and children, encouraging every young person who loves science to reject Christianity.”
Evolution has nothing to do with science because it cannot be subjected to the scientific method.
Actually, it can. But then, Farah once called evolution "a malodorous, filthy, contemptuous lie from the pit of hell."