CNS Spreads A Lie -- And MRC's Bozell Signs Off On It Topic: CNSNews.com
A May 29 CNSNews.com article by Melanie Arter touted a letter by "a coalition of pro-life leaders" objecting to Starbucks donating to Planned Parenthood. As per usual for this stenographer, there's no fact-checking of things like this from the letter as quoted in her article:
Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger once said, ‘We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,’” the pro-life leaders noted in their letter.
In your April statement responding to the arrest of two African-American men sitting in one of your stores, you declared that Starbucks’ ‘founding values are based on humanity and inclusion.’
As men and women who fight for the value and dignity of every human life, we ask:
“Where is the ‘humanity’ and ‘inclusion’ when your company matches employees’ donations to Planned Parenthood, whose founder Margaret Sanger was an outspoken racist with genocidal intentions?
King is lying. As we've documented, experts on Sanger know that while she was a eugenicist, she was not a racist, let alone one with "genocidal intentions." Further, the "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" quote is taken out of context, as many anti-abortion activists love to do; fact-checkers have demonstrated that the full context of the letter from which that quote was ripped -- describing Sanger's "Negro Project" to make birth control available to blacks -- sought to recruit black leaders for the effort to allay suspicions blacks might have had about whites like Sanger being involved.
Arter may have extra motivation to stay in stenography mode: One of the signatories to the letter is Brent Bozell, described only as chairman of ForAmerica (Arter misidentifies Bozell as ForAmerica president; that would be his son, David Bozell, also a signatory to the letter) and never identified as the head of the Media Research Center, where he is Arter's boss. Don't want to make the boss look bad by pointing out he signed on to a lie.
(Hey, at least Arter managed to refrain from giving King that bogus "Dr." honorific, so that's a slight step toward honest journalism. If only CNS paid her to do that instead of lazy stenography.)
WND Portrays Roseanne Barr As A Victim; Peterson Says Jarrett Really Does Look Like An Ape Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is arguing that the real victim of Roseanne Barr's racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett is ... Roseanne Barr.
An anonymously written May 29 WND article on the post-tweet aftermath stated only that Barr "tweeted an insult of Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama’s confidante. The bulk of the article, though, was devoted to "public shaming" of people who commit offensive behavior, with particular focus onone writer's lament about lives being ruined by "mass social justice"and a dismissal of a New York lawyer's tirade against two women who were speaking Spanish as merely "politically incorrect."
Then, WND's columnists felt the need to weigh in. Barbara Simpson approved of Barr's insult: "I thought it was funny in a twisted, insulting way. And I still do. It’s awful and insulting and in bad taste, but it is morbidly funny."
Simpson then rushed to blame everyone else but Barr -- the president of ABC Entertainment for being "the first black entertainment chief of a major broadcast network" ("That wouldn’t be a politically correct question to ask – but it is out there") and Ambien, a defense Barr offered that Simpson readily embraced. "Given the acknowledged side effects of Ambien, it is entirely possible that Roseanne Barr could have done those tweets while under the influence of the drug and not have any recollection of it," she wrote, adding, "Despite the reality of Ambien, Roseanne was cut no slack."
Simpson concluded: "I would submit If Roseanne Barr is guilty of anything, it’s stupidity. She’s had a career of insulting all kinds of groups, from political to religious to racial. And so far, she has gotten away with it because it’s done under the banner of comedy."
Then, Jesse Lee Peterson weighed in, defending Barr because she -- yes, he said this -- really does look like an ape. Then he descended straight into Obama derangement:
Why such strong, sudden moves by elitist media giant ABC? Roseanne put out a funny tweet discussing a Wikileaks report about the corrupt Obama administration. Valerie Jarrett’s name came up – a wicked woman who was Barack Obama’s senior advisor. Roseanne wrote on Twitter in the early morning hours Tuesday: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj” – meaning Valerie Jarrett.
Many people, including Roseanne apparently, didn’t know that Valerie Jarrett is mixed-race “black.” People do know Jarrett wears short, straight hair not unlike a “Planet of the Apes” movie character. Many also know Jarrett was born in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The “Fallen Messiah” Barack Obama and his allies oppressed and marginalized Christians, but supported and covered for Muslims any time Jihadists committed terror attacks.
Peterson's rant continued:
This is an unjust and un-American public lynching of Roseanne Barr, meant to shut white people up and put fear in them. The media made sure everybody called her funny tweet “racist,” overreacting and emotionalizing the situation to make it seem so important and “abhorrent.” Even normally down-to-earth conservatives called her tweet “racist.” Logically, her tweet was either fair or inappropriate – but it was not “racist,” and she had a right to say it. Shamefully, Roseanne apologized repeatedly and profusely. Stop apologizing to the children of the lie!
They don’t care when President Trump is called an “orangutan,” or when black conservatives are called monkeys. It is acceptable to hate whites and Trump supporters. It’s a double standard. They falsely labeled Republicans “Nazis” and the Tea Party “racists” and “terrorists.” The word “racist” is more dehumanizing and destructive to whites than the so-called “N-word” is to blacks. The only solution is for whites to drop their fear.
The left seeks to regain power through intimidation of white people, the people who most support truth and freedom in America.
Peterson concluded by once again calling President Trump "the Great White Hope" (still apparently oblivious to its racist origin) who "tells the truth" (yeah, not so much).
NewsBusters Blogger Oblivious To Fact His Fellow Bloggers Root For NY Times' Demise Topic: NewsBusters
Randy Hall complains in a May 26 NewsBusters post that "wildly liberal" New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio said he "will not shed a tear" if the conservataive New York Post goes out of business. Hall added: "It’s always refreshing when liberals join conservatives in having an adversarial relationship with those in the press. Of course, the Democrats often hope their enemies go under while Republicans don’t take such a hostile view of their adversaries."
First: As we've noted, if the Post were subject to the normal laws of supply and demand, the Post would have gone out of business years ago. It has lost money for decades and stays in business only becasuse its owner, Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. (also owner of Fox News) wants a New York newspaper presence.
Second: Hall has apparently not been reading the website that publishes him. The MRC enjoys rooting for media outlets it doesn't like to go out of business. For example, here's how it cheers for the failure of that other NYC paper, the New York Times:
In 2008, Tom Blumer gloated over the low stock price of what he mockingly called "Manhattan's quaint little alternative paper" and insisting that the market thought the paper to be "worse than worthless." Blumer declared that "There's a steep price to pay for insufferable bias, and NYT's shareholders are paying it" and that "The market is telling the company's shareholders that they'd be better off hanging on to the Red Sox and their interest in the headquarters building -- and shuttering or selling off whatever they can of everything else."
In 2009, Blumer further chortled over the New York Times Co.'s suspension of its quarterly dividend, sneering: "Perhaps we have arrived at the point many predicted would come to pass: The 'venerable' New York Times may no longer be the national newspaper of record."
That same year, Stephen Gutowski highlighted a right-wing blogger writing that "it's possible to take some" joy over the Times' financial problems and seemed giddy at the adea that "analysts give [the Times] less than a year to survive."
And Noel Sheppard was even more giddy at the idea of "the end of his paper being one of the leading proponents of socialism in a capitalist democracy. One can dream, right?"
Of course, the Times survived that financial crisis and is now a money-maker, remained influential, and its stock is doing fine -- much to the chagrin of NewsBusters and its Media Research Center parent. Perhaps Hall should be a little more attentive.
NEW ARTICLE: WND's Bitcoin Bubble Topic: WorldNetDaily
How desperate is WorldNetDaily to stay alive? It's now trying to save itself by giving away a dubious cryptocurrency variant to donors. Read more >>
CNS Still Perpetuates Misinformation About Planned Parenthood Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has spent a decade perpetuating the lie that federal funding to Planned Parenthood pays for abortions. The Trump administration's decision to cut off Title X funding to facilities that perform abortions gave CNS a new opportunity to publish that misinformation once again.
In her article on the decision, CNS' Melanie Arter lies by juxtaposition: "In its latest annual report, Planned Parenthood said that it did 321,384 abortions in fiscal 2016 and that in the year that ended on June 30, 2017 it received $543,700,000 in "government health services reimbursements and grants." In fact, since federal funding is already prohibited from paying for abortion, there is no connection whatsoever between those two numbers, despite what Arter implies.
Arter also gives a pass to false statements she quotes from anti-abortion groups applauding the decision:
"Americans should not be forced to have their tax dollars fund abortion" -- Knights of Columbus.
"Americans don't want their hard-earned tax dollars paying for abortions, a fact polling consistently confirms" -- Ashley McGuire of the Catholic Association.
"Americans are well aware that the $50-60 million pouring into Planned Parenthood annually through Title X grants are subsidizing its main business, abortion" -- Grazie Pozo Christie of the Catholic Association.
"Planned Parenthood’s smoke and mirror accounting has been allowed to divert the 50-60 million dollars it receives yearly in taxpayer funds away from authentic healthcare for low income women for far too long" -- Andrea Picotti-Bayer, legal adviser for the Catholic Association Foundation.
But why would Arter correct them when, as we've seen, she has no interest reporting factually when the facts confict with her employer's right-wing agenda?
The nuclear explosions were seen as nothing less than the “flash from heaven” that said to every single Japanese: “You are hereby released from your duty to die for the emperor. You are released from that pledge because this is not just a new weapon. It is a new kind of weapon and one that changes the rules for all time.”
And Donald Trump is a new kind of person.
We’re familiar with the concept of a “prodigy.” Mozart was a musical prodigy. Bobby Fisher was a chess prodigy. Van Cliburn was a piano prodigy. And Donald Trump is a political prodigy. He’s admittedly no moral prodigy. Nor is he a “people person” in the Dale Carnegie mode. ;He is, however, most definitely a political prodigy! I feel awful watching Sen. Schumer stand there and try to best or even equal a Trump barrage. It’s cruel. High-school football teams play other high school teams. They don’t sacrifice themselves to the pros!
It’s absurd to let yourself get morose at all the unkind algebra here. Trump is to ordinary politicians what the atom bomb is to ordinary weapons. That’s why boxers and wrestlers fight in their own weight class. You can get hurt going up against an opponent who has muscles where you have just thin air. If you doubt you are “outweighed” by President Trump, just reflect for a moment on all Trump had to overcome to become the Republican nominee for president, and how much he’s accomplished despite all the destructive distractions arrayed against him by those who suppose they can bring him down through conventional means.
Republicans and Democrats alike have thrown everything at President Trump but the proverbial kitchen sink. And yet, like “Old Glory,” i.e., the American flag, flying proudly over Fort McHenry as it withstood the relentless assault of enemies committed to robbing American citizens of their freedom and subjugating us to bow before the Throne of England, President Trump soldiers on.
I cannot help but equate the enormous sense of pride I have for the flag with the leadership of President Trump, considering the viciousness of the assault he has championed through.
President Trump, like that historic dawn during the War of 1812, which witnessed “Old Glory” waving proudly amidst the “rockets’ red glare, bombs bursting in air,” gives us proof that the long night of shame and misery Americans suffered under the past administrations has given way to the dawn of a bold new day.
Wave after wave of their delusional madness has been fired at President Trump, yet he stands tall. We the People are blessed with each breaking dawn, knowing that he brings continued victory and a commitment to lead America and her people to a place of truth, prosperity and security.
When The MRC Loved Roseanne Topic: Media Research Center
Roseanne Barr's tweeted remarks about Valerie Jarrett were so unambiguously racist that even the Media Research Center couldn't defend them. All it could do was go straight to whataboutism -- for instance, this post by Corinne Weaver headlined "Nets Link Roseanne to Trump 31 Times, Ignore Weinstein’s Ties to Clinton, Obama."
This post by Gabriel Hays further typifies the MRC's whataboutism:
Good for ABC. What Barr tweeted was vile, and the network has every right to give her the axe. Still, it’s hard to be consistent with ABC’s values because they appear to be situational. There is no shortage of people at ABC and its sister network ESPN that have said or tweeted hateful, bigoted things. Could it be that this is another example of the heinous double standard against conservatives that the mainstream media has become famous for?
What Roseanne said was horrible. Canning her show is justified. But the evidence suggests ABC has different standards of decency depending on one’s politics. Rosanne is a Trump supporter (though not a conservative), and her show was the only one on TV that didn’t go out of its way to insult Trump and his voters. Progressives hated the idea that Roseanne could exist on mainstream television. She handed them an excuse to tear it down. Fine. But ABC talking about consistent values is funnier than anything Rosanne ever said.
The MRC would probably like to forget that it was a champion of the newly Trump-loving Roseanne. But we won't. Let's take a look back, shall we?
A March post by Kyle Drennen touted the "huge ratings" of the "Roseanne" revival, claiming that network executives have "suddenly discovered the value of shows set in red states with pro-Trump characters," then sneering: "If there’s a chance to make money, the liberal media become quite eager to hear from red state America."
Jeffrey Lord gushed that "Roseanne's" success illustrated the "mammoth battle - some might even call it a war - between the elites Rush [Limbaugh] has correctly described and the rest of us."
Karen Townsend cheered an episode of the reboot in which Roseanne's new neighbors are Muslims, relieved that the show "wasn’t all so heavy-handed that Americans should feel guilty for feeling cautious around strangers from countries in the Middle East." Yes, Roseanne made Townsend feel secure in her dubious fear of Muslims.
Nevertheless, the MRC couldn't stop deflecting. A column by Tim Graham and Brent Bozell blamed ABC for bringing back the show because "Barr has always been a loose cannon, and her politics have zigzagged from running on the presidential ticket of the nutty-left Green Party all the way over to backing Trump." They then resorted to more whataboutism.
WND's Cashill Plays Whataboutism To Whitewash Violent Anti-Abortion Activist Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill is very fond of violent anti-abortion activists. He tried to offer a pre-emptive defense of James Kopp for murdering an abortion doctor -- which went for naught when Kopp confessed to the murder -- then cheered Scott Roeder's "frontier justice" in murdering abortion doctor George Tiller. He also stood up for the terrorist who bombed an abortion clinic and the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, killing two.
Cashill brings that love of anti-abortion terrorism to his May 22 column, in which he adds another to his gallery of rogues by highlighting the release of Shelley Shannon from prison. Shannon served 25 years for shooting Tiller and firebombing numerous abortion clinics. He complains that abortion-rights activists are pointing out that Shannon has shown no remorse for her crimes, than jumps into a fit of whataboutism:
Shown zero remorse? Maybe so, but how does that differentiate Shannon from the terrorists holed up at Guantanamo, the very same terrorists for whom the American left has shown almost nothing but sympathy?
According to the Director of National Intelligence, at least 121 of the so-called terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay have re-engaged in terrorism. These numbers have not diminished the left’s drive to have more terrorists released.
Or consider the disparate treatment of President Barack Obama’s favorite terrorists, Bill Ayers and his lovely bride, Bernardine Dohrn.
Cashill then nizarrely defended Shannon for not being as violent as she could have been:
Unlike Ayers and Dohrn, Shannon never tried to kill anyone, including Tiller. She shot him in his arms, the strategy then common among hard-core pro-lifers whose goal was to disable abortionists not to kill them.
For all of Shannon’s admitted violence, there cannot be many women in the federal prison system who have served longer for a non-lethal crime. As to Ayers, he served no time at all.
Cashill omitted the fact that while Ayers stopped his violence decades ago, Shannon has shown no interest in doing so, given who she's been fraternizing with:
"She and I have been in touch for a long time, quite often," said the Rev. Donald Spitz, leader of Pro-Life Virginia and sponsor of the Army of God website, which supports those who have committed violence against abortion clinics and doctors. "The plan is for her to be in a halfway house for now. I think she’s getting there tonight."
Another fan of Shannon’s was Scott Roeder, a Kansas City-area anti-abortion activist who visited Shannon on numerous occasions when she was in prison in Topeka. On a Sunday morning in May 2009, Roeder entered Tiller’s church in Wichita and shot Tiller in the forehead at point-blank range.
As Roeder awaited trial for murder, Spitz told The Star that Shannon had been writing to people from her prison cell, encouraging them to support Roeder and send him money. Spitz shared part of a letter she sent to a supporter after Tiller’s death.
Shannon wrote that when she heard of Tiller's murder, "I almost thought I saw a whole cloud of babies clapping, like a standing ovation."
And in a statement posted on Spitz's website, she said: "If the abortionist remains alive, many babies die. ... Those who killed abortionists chose life for all the innocent babies he would have killed, and did our country a great service."
At his trial, Roeder testified that he admired Shannon and also sought out other abortion foes who were open to using force against abortion doctors. After Roeder was found guilty in 2010, Shannon issued a statement of support from prison.
And because he can't help himself, Cashill concluded with a fit of Obama Derangement Syndrome: "Oh yeah, and Ayers did 'pal around' with Barack Obama, helped write his scam of a book as well." Cashill has for years insisted that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" -- a claim even Cashill's fellow, less conspiratorially-minded conservatives ran from.
The employment numbers for May were good, so needless to say, CNSNews.com wasted no time in pegging the pro-Trump rah-rah-meter.
Susan Jones cheered that "The number of employed Americans, 155,474,000, has broken another record -- for the ninth time since President Trump took office, in fact. At the same time, the number of unemployed Americans dropped to 6,065,000, a low not seen since January 2001." Jones did go on to concede that the labor force participation rate has not changed much, which she attributed to "the increasing number of Baby Boom retirees" -- a fact that was largely missing when Jones reported on the labor force participation rate under Obama.
CNS then took a partisan hit at Nancy Pelosi in an anonymously written article, framing her as being critical of "record employment" when she was pointing out that poorer Americans face higher health care costs because of Republicans' dismantling of the Affordable Care Act and tax cuts that favored the rich.
WND Columnist Too Busy Spewing Hate To Get His Facts Straight Topic: WorldNetDaily
The last time we saw John Griffing at WorldNetDaily, it was as a highly biased reporter. Now, Griffing is writing as a columnist, and he's even more biased and shaky with the facts.
Griffing's May 22 WND column is based on the faulty premise that anyone who criticizes vicious right-wing attacks on Muslims is somehow anti-Semitic -- in particular, Facebook trying to put a lid on anti-Muslim extremism. At one point, Griffing bizarrely calls Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a "Jewish anti-Semite criminal mastermind" and "Darth Vader to George Soros’ Emperor Palpatine" because "The George Soros-funded Poynter Institute was hired by Facebook last year to censor 'fake news.'" Actually, Poynter itself received no Soros-linked funding; a separate Poynter division, the International Fact-Checking Network, received money from Soros' Open Society Foundation.
And here's where Griffing's relationship with the truth breaks down considerably. He adds that "there’s another important fact about Soros that indisputably colors his worldview: He’s a Nazi, and not metaphorically. He’s an actual historical Nazi. Soros helped confiscate the property of Jews during World War II."
Wrong. Soros was a 14-year-old Jew in trying to hide his identity in Nazi-occupied Hungary by posing as the godson of his Christian protector, who had been tasked with inventorying property already confiscated from a Jew who had fled the country.
Griffing also huffed that "1,000 Muslim refugees raped hundreds of women on NYE in Cologne," Germany. In fact, desite that number being accepted as gospel by anti-Muslim activists like Griffing, the truth is that no more than "several dozen men" were involved.
Griffing also defended at length anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller with disclosing he has published several articles at Geller's website.
Griffing is apparently promoting himself these days as a media consultant; his LinkedIn page declares: "When objectivity and intellectual freedom are increasingly under attack & harder to find in traditional media outlets, it is essential that those who are carrying the torch of freedom are equipped for the task. I equip them." It's clear from his column, though, that Griffing wouldn't know objectivity and fact-checking if they bit him.
MRC's Graham Goes On Heathering Rant Against George Will Topic: Media Research Center
A column sharply critical of Vice President Mike Pence -- for overall toadyism and, in particular, sucking up to the likes of Joe Arpaio -- was all that it took for the Media Research Center's Tim Graham to go on a Heathering rant against Washington Post columnist George Will.
At no point in his May 10 post does Graham dispute anything Will wrote about Graham -- he's upset it was written at all, and he's even moremad that CNN's Jake Tapper featured it. Let the rant begin:
Tapper put a different quote on screen in the 4 pm hour, including the headline “Trump Is No Longer the Worst Person in Government” and the line “Mike Pence, with his talent for toadyism and appetite for obsequiousness, could, Trump knew, become America’s most repulsive public figure.”
Tapper at least noted that flattering presidents is what vice presidents do. So why didn’t CNN explore whether George Will wrote a column like this about oh, Vice President Biden? Here’s what they would find: “conservative” Will has never written a critical column about Biden over the last ten years. In fact, he’s never written about Biden at all in that period.
This raises a different question, as Tapper protested he wouldn’t read this column if Will wasn’t a “conservative.” Has anti-“lickspittle” George Will ever written a column criticizing his bosses at The Washington Post? Or any of his TV-network paymasters over the years? Good luck finding one.
As far as not criticizing TV paymasters goes, Graham might want to check with his boss, Brent Bozell, who set the pace for that by oozing upon the death of Roger Ailes -- longtime operator of the MRC's preferred media outlet, Fox News -- that "The good Roger did for America is immeasurable" and staying silent about the fact that Ailes lost his job for serial sexual harassment, which we would argue was not good for America.
Newsmax's Kerik Serves Up More Right-Wing Ranting Topic: Newsmax
We'venoted how disgraced ex-New York City police chief Bernard Kerik is trying to reinvent himself as a right-wing-ranting Newsmax columnist (the place that has done more than a little image rehab on him over the years). The ranting hasn't really stopped.
Kerik served up more pro-Trump huffing in an April column, declaring that the search warrants served up dubious Trump attorney Michael Cohen "should scare the hell out of every American in our country," adding that "Like an out of control locomotive, it appears by all reports that these prosecutors are extremely dangerous and acting with impunity, and unfortunately, with their actions against Michael Cohen, they just drove that locomotive smack into the scales of justice — and shattered the Constitution and what it stands for."
In another April column, Kerik attacked former FBI director James Comey, alleging that he was "leaking classified information" and that he should receive "the same treatment as Matt Bissonette, General Michael Flynn, and so many others that have dedicated their lives to the service of our country, only to be targeted by the very government they worked for, for selective and political reasons." Kerik has apparently not considered the possibility that Trump is targeting Comey for selective and political reasons."
Kerik's May 1 column attacks Democrats for allegedly abandoning blacks in favor of undocumented immigrants, going on to tout how "Blacks like [Candace] Owens, Ben Carson, retired Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke and Trump supporter Joy Villa, a black female singer and song writer, have been taking their message to America’s black communities." In fact, Clarke didn't "retire"; he abruptly resigned amid growing questions about his mismanagement of the county jail.
Then, on May 7, Kerik penned a screed against the purportedly "corrupt" FBI and Department of Justice, painting himself as a victim in the process:
For any American that has ever been the subject or target of a federal criminal investigation, there are three things that become abundantly clear to you — and your family — as you are dragged into a nightmare intended to bankrupt you, as well as destroy you personally, financially, and professionally.
First, that the good guys are not always good guys. Second, you do not have the constitutional rights you believe you have, especially if you don’t have the money to fight for those rights. Third, it’s not always about truth or justice for U.S. prosecutors — it’s about winning at all costs.
Having run two of the largest law enforcement agencies in the nation, the NYPD, and New York City jail system — including Rikers Island — I was completely oblivious to these tactics and injustices by federal prosecutors. Then I was targeted.
In the last two years however, things have changed, and unless you’re hiding under a rock, the American public has gotten to see firsthand how the FBI and Justice Department selectively violates U.S. law and their own policies with impunity.
Irony: Anti-Gay Columnist Demands That Gays Respect Christians Topic: CNSNews.com
Bill Donohue huffs in a May 17 CNSNews.com column:
Gay rights activists have been on a collision course with traditional Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Mormons for some time.
All of these religious groups, and others, hold to the traditional understanding of marriage: it is the union of a man and a woman. Moreover, they believe that children need a father and a mother to serve as role models. They don't need, nor deserve, two members of the same sex as parents.
LGBT activists disagree. That is their right. But they have no right to portray these religious persons—they include tens of millions of Americans—as bigots for simply practicing their faith.
Individual rights cannot always be allowed to trump what is in the best interest of society. A free society needs to be undergirded by more than just democratic institutions—it requires social stability and the wellbeing of its citizens. Those attributes are best met when the only two people who can procreate, a man and a woman, are granted the exclusive right to marry, and where the intact family of father, mother, and children is awarded a privileged position.
Donohue might have had a point if he didn't have his ownlengthy history of demonizing the LGBT community.
As we've documented, Donohue dishonestly misinterprets the John Jay report on child abuse by priests in the Catholic Church, insisting on blaming homosexuality when the report actually found no connection between homosexual identity and sexual abuse and the report's authors cautioned against linking identity and behavior.
A couple years back, Donohue -- in a horrified reaction to Pope Francis' call for Christians to apologize to gays -- demanded that gays apologize to him because "I've been assaulted by gays." How about you stop lying about them first, Bill?
Respect has to be earned. Donohue hasn't earned it.
WND Columnist's Hot Take: Martial Law In Cities Run By Democrats Topic: WorldNetDaily
I’ve been hesitant to ask, but I will no longer resist: Is it time for martial law in many (perhaps all) midsize and big cities that have been ruled by Democrats for decade upon decade?
The Democrats have ruled Chicago for longer than Stalin ruled the USSR, the Castros in Cuba and the Kims in North Korea, and for longer than slavery was legal in the U.S.
These are America’s top 10 most violent cities, according to FBI data. Violent crimes include homicides, gun violence, gangs, pedophilia and robberies. Every city is majority Democrat-controlled. Several of the cities on the FBI’s list also appear on the aforementioned murder and non-fatal shootings lists. Because the FBI’s ranking is per capita, cities such as Chicago and Newark (only Democratic mayors; 90 percent Democratic city council; 23,000 days) are absent.
We’re witness to the single most treasonous and egregious cover up within the DMIC: the Democrat Media Industrial Complex.
At what point do law-abiding residents in these cities and their suburbs decide the breaking point has been reached? At what point do law-abiding Americans who have been casual observers start noticing? Is it as simple as asking, “why do you live there?”; or, “that’s who you voted for”? It’s not that simple; if it were, the pendulum would have swung to somewhat normalcy. Instead the breadth and frequency of violent crime in these municipalities have worsened over the years, not improved.
I’m loathe to speak for our national forefathers, but is it not within reason to suggest that they might deem the conditions in Democratic municipal hegemonies as justification for the suspension of habeas corpus? I do not know the answer; the question and the answer are complex.
What I do know, however, is that the cities governed by the same political party for tens of thousands of consecutive days have forced me to wonder aloud whether Congress must seriously consider the unprecedented step of declaring martial law. If declared, there’s no going back, and none of us know what the aftermath would look like.
How many more must die? When will we unequivocally draw the line in the sand that juveniles committing violent crime in Baltimore is unacceptable? When will Americans have enough of career criminality? If martial law isn’t an, or the, answer or solution, then what is? The majority of residents in these cities are law-abiding and have a right not to die simply because of where they live.
Our Revolutionaries lived under King George III for 37 years, and then decided upon the last resort of waging war; 37 years is but a pittance of time to Democrats in their cities. The king would marvel at how effectively the Democrats have maintained their stranglehold; the British monarchs ain’t got nothin’ on them.
MRC's Utterly Lame 'Reality Check' On CNN's Acosta Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Rich Noyes writes in a May 17 post:
In the past 18 months, CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta has suggested President Trump is a “racist,” while whining that Trump’s complaints about press bias were doing “real damage to the First Amendment,” speculating that some day we might see “a dead journalist on the side of the highway, because of the rhetoric coming out of the White House.”
Then on Wednesday’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Acosta said this about his Trump coverage: “Listen, when I covered Barack Obama, I was just as tough on him. People might not believe that.”
As tough on Obama as he’s been on Trump? Let’s investigate.
OK. For most legitimate researchers an "investigation" being presented as a "reality check" (per Noyes' headline) woudl involve some sort of comprehensive analysis of eight years of Acosta's reporting.
But this is the MRC we're talking about here, where shoddy, biased research is the norm. Instead, Noyes cherry-picks a handful of cherry-picked, Acosta-bashing posts out the MRC's own archive and baselessly presents them as fully represenatative of Acosta's work during the Obama years. Of course, the MRC never clipped anything from Acosta that didn't reinforce its anti-media agenda, so any Acosta work that was critical of Obama never made it into the MRC's archive.
In other words, this is the laziest "reality check" ever, designed only to further the MRC's agenda and not to enlighten anyone with facts.