Jesse Lee Peterson Is Talking Like A White Nationalist Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed WorldNetDaily columnist Jesse Lee Peterson's propensity sounding like a white racist because he's a black conservative and, thus, suffering no consequences for it. He does this again in his July 1 column, the theme of which is that "most black people hate white people." He goes on to rant:
Whites have sacrificed their children to public schools and leftist indoctrination at colleges and universities. Parents have failed to raise their children to be strong and independent, so they are vulnerable to the lies and evil of the world. They become atheists, don’t get married and don’t have families – whites do not even make enough babies to replace the whites dying!
Now the children of Satan pretend to care about illegal alien “children” and “families” – the Wicked Witch of the West, Maxine Waters, calling for harassment, intimidation and violence against President Trump’s cabinet and his supporters. The liberal media think they have the moral high ground, calling the president and his supporters racist Nazis, trying to spark assassinations and civil war. They don’t value human life or morality at all. With their phony “fact checkers,” they deny the truth: that Democrats want open borders, in order to fundamentally transform America, tear down and remake the country in their image.
The children of the lie have destroyed the average black man – he isn’t worth a dime. They’ve done the same to Hispanic men – most of their children are born out of wedlock. Now they’ve turned their hatred toward the white man, taking his children away from him, his job and business away if he defies political correctness, and encouraging boys to grow up weak, soft, unable to deal with “bullies” or issues of life without medication and help from the government. If his child becomes confused about his gender or sexuality, they don’t want parents to have any say or moral guidance in what is right for their own child!
We finally have a breath of relief with the presidency of Donald Trump, the Great White Hope. One man – a straight, white, conservative, Christian man of power – stands against the madness. Through his courage in plainly telling the truth, he is awakening men of all races, and many women, to reality and renewed love for God, country and fellow man.
Once again, Peterson is cheering Trump's whiteness by using a term with a racist history (and he provides no evidence whatsoever that Trump is a practicing Christian).
Peterson concludes with this confusing bit of logical jiu-jitsu:
If you take no other bit of advice from me, do this: Let go of anger. Take an objective look at our president: So far he has not displayed anger. Many people think he’s angry. But they’re angry, and judging him. He simply has no fear. He will call you out no matter what race or gender you are. He’s from the old school, the tough, logical, masculine men who put up with no mess, and who made our country great.
Trump, of course, is an angry man as his tweets regularly demonstrate. And so is Peterson -- does a happy warrior so viciously demonize people he doesn't agree with by smearing them as "the children of Satan"?
MRC Goes Into Promotion Mode Again For Right-Wing Anti-Abortion Movie Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is good buddies with right-wing filmmaker team Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney -- so much so that it gave them copiouspromotionalspace four years ago for the crowdfunding campaign for the husband-and-wife team's film about rogue abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell (and made sure not to ask where McAleer and McElhinney got the money to buy a billboard petulantly trashing one crowdfunding site for dropping their campaign). Then, we found that McAleer and McElhinney was apparently paying the MRC to run the campaign -- something the MRC never disclosed to its readers. That apparent pay-for-play agreement continued last year, when the MRC's Tim Graham and Brent Bozell promoted McAleer and McElhinney's movie and tie-in book.
Now that the exploitative Gosnell movie is about to come out, the MRC is back in PR mode with a June 27 post by Katie Yoder touting an "exclusive statement to MRC Culture" from McElhinney. Yoder forwarded all the appropriate talking points, including baselessly suggesting that Gosnell is representative of all abortion providers, while also relying on a Hollywood Reporter article for the meat of her post. Which led to this curious detail late in the post:
According to THR, the distribution deal came after Judge Jeffrey Minehart, presiding at Gosnell’s trial, “sued to block the release of the film, fearing he was portrayed as part of ‘Philadelphia’s liberal corrupt government.’”
That has since been resolved, THR added.
That's better known as defamation. That seems like an important issue to address given that it held up release of the film, but Yoder was apparently not interested in getting an "exclusive statement" from McElhinney discussing the lawsuit or how exactly it was "resolved." Much of what's online about the lawsuit concerns itself with procedural matters, and nothing mentions how Minehart's lawsuit was settled.
But that would have gotten in the way of the PR function of Yoder's post, and McAleer and McElhinney are not paying the MRC for that.
Trump Buddy Ruddy Serves Up A Defense for Trump's Foundation Topic: Newsmax
When you start out your column by treating the National Enquirer as a source of sage knowledge, you're in the hole already. Yet that's what Christopher Ruddy does in his June 28 column, in which the Trump buddy defends the Trump Foundation:
The recent New York State Attorney General’s legal action against the Donald J. Trump Foundation sparked my interest.
In the years I have known the president, one thing about him is true: he’s quite generous and charitable.
Iain Calder, the long-time editor of the National Enquirer told me the story that in the 1980s, when the paper did a story about Trump’s quiet charitable giving, the rising billionaire called him to complain.
For the Sinatra generation, publicity about your charity was not a good thing.
So we're likening Trump to Sinatra now? Whatever.
Ruddy then complained that "the phrase 'no good deed goes unpunished' seems to apply to our president," claimed that the investigation of the foundation by the New York attorney genera was political and launched a lengthy defense of it:
So what’s the deal with the Trump Foundation?
Without having conducted a forensic review, the allegations seems to be the legal version of Fake News.
Although the Donald J. Trump Foundation accepts funding from outside donors, as a private, non-operating foundation, it’s primarily a vehicle to distribute grants from Donald Trump and his family.
A glance at its IRS form 990 filings reflects this. The foundation pays no salaries and its total expenditures each year are at zero or nearly so. Its charitable distributions each year are at or near 100 percent of what it takes in.
This is highly unusual. We have all read stories of celebrities who “pad” their foundations with salaries for family and hangers-on. Foundation funds are often used as a personal slush fund.
This has never been the case with the Trump Foundation.
The State’s case is largely based on nonsense.
Well, actually, not so much. As a real news organization notes, Trump did not donate any money to the foundation between 2008 and 2015 and most of its money was not actually his, and he used foundation money to settle legal disputes with his businesses. And Ruddy's hometown newspaper has reported that "Nearly all of the $706,000 in donations made by the Donald J. Trump Foundation in Palm Beach County since 2008 went to charities that hosted lavish fundraisers at Mar-a-Lago," which certainly looks suspicious (though the charities deny any quid pro quo). Further, the alleged use of foundation assets to help Trump's presidential campaign violates federal tax law.
Ruddy takes the "so what?" approach, literally, to addressing these allegations:
They note that since 2009 the Trump Foundation received little money from Trump himself but instead donations from friends and business partners.
If Trump was offered money and suggested the other party donate to his Foundation instead — so money could be distributed directly to charities — why is this bad?
Another allegation is that the Foundation made donations to some charities that paid for facilities at Trump golf clubs, hotels, or Mar-a-Lago.
The State implies the donations were used as an inducement for business.
Typically such donations were $5,000 to $10,000. Hardly an amount that could be considered a “bribe” to get a charity to spend $250,000 or more at one of his properties.
And considering the sheer number of groups using Trump properties, those who received donations were just a tiny fraction. Hardly a pattern of misconduct here!
Ruddy concludes by concluding there's "no evidence" to support the allegations, just like with "Trump-Russian collusion."
That's the kind of toadying that will keep Ruddy in Trump's inner circle.
CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones has figured out a way to distract from non-Trump-friendly employment numbers: lead with a rah-rah Trump quote. And that's what she does in her lead article on June's numbers:
"Our economic policy can be summed up in three very simple but beautiful but beautiful words," President Donald Trump told a rally in Montana Thursday evening: "Jobs, jobs, jobs," he said.
On Friday, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics said the economy added 213,000 jobs in June, a strong number; the number of employed Americans, 155,576,000, set its tenth record of the Trump presidency; but the number of unemployed Americans (which includes people who are actively looking for jobs) increased by almost half-a-million. The unemployment rate increased two tenths of a point to 4.0 percent.
Jones' article is accompanied by Terry Jeffrey's usual article about increased manufacturing jobs and Michael W. Chapman's usual article about falling black unemployment -- needless to say, neither of them reported that both of these trends began under President Obama.
A new feature this time, though, is an article by Craig Bannister highlighting that "The national seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos in the U.S. labor force fell to the lowest level on record in June of 2018." But the accompanying chart shows that this trend began as well under Obama. Bannister did concede this in an article, but in a convoluted way that tries to make Obama look bad and avoid giving him credit for the decline:
During the 17 full months of the Trump administration, beginning in February 2017, Hispanic-Latino unemployment has averaged 5.0%.
In contrast, the national Hispanic-Latino unemployment rate averaged 9.4% during President Barack Obama’s eight years (96 months) in office, impacted by the 2008 recession, which officially ended in June of 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hispanic-Latino unemployment was 11.3% during Obama’s first full month in office, February of 2009. By January of 2017, the Hispanic-Latino unemployment rate had dropped to 5.9%. Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017.
NEW ARTICLE: WND's New Favorite Bible Hero Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily pushes the purported divinity of President Trump again by likening him to the biblical figure Cyrus. It's also pretending that Trump's actions regarding Israel aren't hastening the End Times it so fervently wishes for. Read more >>
After Newspaper Shooting , MRC Plays Down Trump's Anti-Media Rhetoric, Fears Right-Wing Media Criticism Is Threatened Topic: Media Research Center
The first reaction of the Media Research Center to the shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper offices in Maryland was damage control -- for President Trump as well as for the MRC's brand of petty, mocking, politically motivated right-wing media criticism.
Curtis Houck whined that one CNN correspondent "blamed President Trump’s near-daily comments about the news media for the deranged gunman’s actions" (he didn't note that those "comments" involved trashing said media). He went on to huff:
Everyone should be careful with what they say in private and public, but most (or at least enough) people were raised to be responsible for their own actions. 2018 is certainly part of an era where the level of partisanship seems like it couldn’t possibly get any worse, so it would behoove all of us to take a few deep breathes.
However, recklessly blaming the President for a deranged and sadistic gunman’s actions serves no one besides push a partisan agenda. And such behavior helps no one on a dire day such as this one.
Two days earlier, however, Houck's MRC colleague Nicholas Fondacaro championed Fox News' Tucker Carlson pre-emptively blaming Rep. Maxine Waters for any possible violence resulting from her urging people to publicly confront members of theTrump administration -- despite the fact that Waters did not advocate violence and none had actually occured. Fondacaro hypocritically lamented that "many reasonable people were rightfully fearful that we might be headed for a tragedy" as a result of Waters' comments and insisted it was "out of control hatred" to liken Trump to Richard Nixon.
Despite that hypocrisy, Kristine Marsh complained that "journalists and media outlets irresponsibly sent out provocative tweets directly or indirectly blaming the president for supposedly inspiring the deadly shooting, even as reports revealed the shooter had a personal dispute with the paper, in 2012," and Scott Whitlock groused that "we've seen this attempt at blame play out on multiple media outlets.
Another post by Houck feared that by highlighting Trump's vicious attacks on the media in connection with the Capital Gazette shooting, it would hurt media criticism -- specifically, the MRC's version of it, which tracks closely with Trump's views though with slightly less viciousness. He pretended to read the minds of a couple of people on CNN, insisting that when they referenced "the rise of threats against journalists" they really meant "criticism of the news media." Houck then tried to deflect scrutiny away from his employer with a bit of unusual-for-the-MRC praise of the media:
Journalism is a basic tenet of our representative republic and democracies throughout the world, but that doesn’t mean they’re free from criticism and offering sober, substantive appraisals of media in all its forms. And that’s what we try to do at NewsBusters.
Feel free to laugh at that self-assessment.
Does Houck think his war on Jim Acosta for not parroting the Trump White House line -- which involves derisively mocking him for being worried about his safety because he's not an MRC-approved toady or for even expecting to have his words taken in context -- is sober and substantive? Does he think that his boss, Brent Bozell, was offering a sober, substantive appraisal when he called President Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead"? Is freakingouteverytime someone in the media fails to hate the LGBT community the way the MRC does sober and substantive?
Sober and substantive media criticism is appreciated -- but that's not how Houck, NewsBusters and the MRC make their living, and Houck embarrasses himself when he tries to pretend otherwise.
WND Columnist Who Called Trump Accuser A 'Super Whore' Laments Decline of Civil Discourse Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jane Chastain spent her June 27 WorldNetDaily column lamenting that "legitimate discourse" has become an "endangered species," using lots of examples of the decline such as "baseless or outright false political Facebook posts" and attacking public officials -- all of which, of course, come from what she portrays as Democrats and liberals.
Just as with Joseph Farah, Chastain has apparently forgotten about the website that publishes her column, which is filled with bogus and misleading claims. She has also forgotten her own history of less-than-civil discourse.
We've noted that Chastain dismissed Stormy Daniels, who has made credible accusations of having an affair, as a "super whore" because she has worked as a porn actress.Chastain also went on a slut-shaming tirade of the woman of accused Roy Moore of perving on them as teenagers, calling the accusations against Moore "obviously politically motivated and attacking one woman as having teen a "trouble teen" with "problems" who may have "made up the story to impress" people, huffing, "Moore has led a moral life. [The accuser] not so much."
On the plus side, Chastain does concede that Fox News does have a "conservative slant." So there's that.
CNS Bashes Supreme Court Justices, Former And Future Topic: CNSNews.com
When Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, CNSNews.com made sure to bid him good riddance.
A June 27 article -- credited to "CNSNews.com staff" but carrying the pedantic tone of editor in chief Terry Jeffrey -- complained that "The two opinions Kennedy wrote that may have had the greatest impact on American society and law were both in 5-4 decisions, where he was the swing vote. One upheld Roe v. Wade and declared abortion a constitutional right. The other declared that same-sex marriage is a 'right' and that the Constitution commands that the states recognize it." Putting the word "right" in scare quotes while discussing those decisions are a hallmark of this article; it devotes nine paragraphs of the 35-paragraph article repeating dissenting opinions from the same-sex marraige decision, which aren't really about Kennedy but are all about forwarding CNS' anti-gay agenda.
Jeffrey's July 3 column insisted that "History will remember Justice Anthony Kennedy for advancing an illogical argument to deny a God-given right" regarding the Casey decision that upheld a woman's right to an abortion, huffily adding, "That places him on the opposite side of a fundamental question from the great Roman senator Cicero — as well as from Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr." Jeffrey concluded by declaring that "in Justice Kennedy's world, all rights are mutable — subject to whomever holds five votes on the Supreme Court." Of course, that's the same on the conservative side as well as Jeffrey and his ideologues fight to ensure a five-vote majority.
And fighting for a specific ideology on the court is exactly what Jeffrey is doing by taking aim at one particular reported candidate for the job.
A July 6 article by Jeffrey complained that Brett Kavanaugh "declined to rule against Obamacare’s individual mandate and argued that the case could not be decided by a federal court until at least 2015 because of the Anti-Injunction Act, adding: "All nine members of the Supreme Court—including Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—would later join in opinions (in the Obamacare case that the Supreme Court decided in 2012) that rejected the argument Kavanaugh embraced that the Anti-Injunction Act prevented a pre-2015 ruling on the Obamacare mandate."
Jeffrey followed that up on July 8 with an article grousing that Kavanaugh "accepted the assumption in a dissenting opinion he filed last October in the case of Garza v. Hargan that a teenage illegal alien caught at the border and put in detention has a right to an abortion in the United States," insisting that the assumption "contrasted sharply with the argument made by the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina in an amicus brief presented to the court. Those states argued that Supreme Court precedent did not in fact recognize a right to abortion in the United States for an illegal alien caught entering the country—and that there was, in fact, no such right." Jeffrey did not explain that athese states have no actual interest in the case at hand, nor did he explain that an amicus brief is something parties without standing do.
If Kavanaugh actually is nominated, it will be interesting to see if Jeffrey and CNS keep up their opposition to him or if they will fall in line like the good little Trump stenographers they usually are.
WND's Farah Speculates About Obama-Weinstein Links Topic: WorldNetDaily
Despite fake news and conspiracy-mongering being one of the key factors that almost killed WorldNetDaily this year, WND editor Joseph Farah has no problem with continuing to indulge his conspiratorial tendencies. Hence, Farah's July 1 column, in which he tries to credit Harvey Weinstein for Barack and Michelle Obama's production deal with Netflix.
Farah insists that "it’s true the Obamas are long-time friends – thisclose, as they say in the biz" to Weinstein. The only evidence he provides is a claim that Weinstein "frequently" (italics his) visited the Obama White House (actually, it was apparently only 13 times, much of it likely linked to the fact that Weinstein was, in Farah's words, a "major donor" to Democrats), and that the Obama's daughter Malia worked an intership at the Weinstein Company before the allegations about Weinstein went public.
Farah then speculates that there was no way the Obamas could not have known about sexual harassment allegations surrounding Weinstein before the scandal broke: "The rumors and the actual stories have been around for many years – decades, in fact. Take, for instance, this story going back to 2010, which names names and details details. But anyone who has worked in and around Hollywood knows the Weinstein predator stories go back to at least the 1990s. I can tell you, as a journalist working in L.A. at the time, I heard the scuttlebutt in the 1980s." Oh, and that "story going back to 2010" is to some blog that nobody has heard of.
Did Farah report on any of that "scuttlebutt" when he was a L.A. reporter? He offers no evidence that he did. If he had, he could have had something more on which to hang his journalistic hat than his claim that he's the one who invented the "Night Stalker" moniker for serial killer Richard Ramirez.
Despite not having articulated any actual physical evidence directly linking Weinstein to the Obamas' Netflix deal or even that they had any knowledge of Weinstein's issues with women before the scandal broke, Farah sarcasically concluded his column by saying, "Imagine that! What a coincidence. That’s one scandal they just never saw coming. Who’d have guessed?
And who would have guessed that journalism high on speculating about "coincidences" and low on actual, provable facts would almost bring down Farah's website? Apparently, he just never saw that coming.
CNS Provides Trump-Friendly (Non-) Coverage of Melania And Her Jacket Topic: CNSNews.com
As we've noted, Melania Trump wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "I really don't care, do U?" on her way to visit immigrant children in Texas that even leading Trump sycophant and CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones called her out on it for being a "major distraction." Even then, though, Jones played her sycophant role well; after dutifully quoting Melania's spokesman saying that "I hope the media isn't going to choose to focus on her wardrobe "The media did indeed focus on her jacket and the odd message it sent," then quickly got back on message, declaring in the sixth paragraph of her article that she was "turning from her wardrobe to her actual words" and stayed focused on that for the remainder of her 24-paragraph article.
Meanwhile, Jones' fellow CNS Trump sycophant, Melanie Arter, couldn't manage even Jones' perfuctory mention of the jacket despite its significance as a story. Arter wrote a 10-paragraph article on Melania's visit that -- in apparent accordance with her spokeswoman -- make no mention whatsoever of the jacket and quoted only Melania's communications director.
Content that conforms with what the Trump White House wants to see is how CNS rolls.
Freeform’s dramedy The Bold Type is (unfortunately) back for another season, and it’s disappointingly more of the same extremely liberal, sex-obsessed storylines. Considering that the show’s target audience is teenagers, it becomes quite disturbing to see storylines such as an argument between two lesbian characters Kat (Aisha Dee) and Adena (Nikohl Boosheri) over Kat being afraid to “go down” on Adena, then an ensuing discussion about lesbian oral sex between the three main female characters Kat, Jane (Katie Stevens) and Sutton (Meghann Fahy) and, finally, the supposedly triumphant conclusion, shown in graphic detail, as Kat overcomes her fears and treats Adena to an obvious orgasm via cunnilingus.
Ashley Rae Goldenberg is offended for some reason that Apple CEO Tim Cook, "who famously came out as gay in 2014," issued a tweet endorsing Pride Month.
Matthew Balan huffed that "NPR shamelessly slanted leftward on Weekend Edition Sunday, with a segment that spotlighted a drag show in Vermont that was sponsored by a local veterans hospital," further huffing that this was a "taxpayer-funded segment" while providing no evidence that taxpayer money directly paid for any reporting related to that segment.
Gavin Oliver and Ken Oliver think that Univision shouldn't be reporting on LGBT issues because "the audience it purports to serve and know best - the U.S. Spanish-speaking Hispanic population" expresses (slightly) lower support for same-sex marriage than whites and the U.S. poplation as a whole, and besides, gays are "disproportionately influential" because "the LGBT community is estimated by Gallup to comprise only 4% of the population of the United States."
Rachel Peterson is appalled that some Christians are going to pride parades to apologize for theif rellow gay-hating Christians -- which Peterson frames as "Christian belief in traditional marriage" and "the biblical views of same-sex relationships" -- because doing so "further[s] the LGBT agenda."
Priorities: CNS Gives More Space To Trump Lowering Flags For Newspaper Shooting Than To Shooting Itself Topic: CNSNews.com
On June 28, CNSNews.com's Melanie Arter wrote a bare-bones article about the shooting at a newspaper in Maryland. Here it is in its entirety:
A suspect is in custody after a workplace shooting Thursday at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Md.
Multiple fatalities have been confirmed by Anne Arundel County Sheriff Ron Bateman.
Police are saying there may be more shooters as well as bombs.
The Capital Gazette is owned by the Baltimore Sun.
At most news operations, this sort of sketchy early story would ultimately be fleshed out with more details as they became available. For whatever reason, Arter's article never was updated.
By contrast, Arter's July 3 article on President Trump announcing he will order flags to be lowered to half-staff (the headline incorrectly states "half-mast") as a way of "honoring the five journalists killed last week during a shooting a the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Md." received nine fully fleshed-out paragraphs, three of which directly quoted from Trump's proclamation.
While Arter noted that the Capital Gazette had reported that Trump would not at first consent to lowering the flags, she didn't mention Trump's contentious history with the media -- i.e. calling them the "enemy of the people" -- that might make such a gesture feel a bit hollow.
Just goes to show how much of a priority Trump-fluffing is at CNS over actual news.
WND's Farah Pretends Only Democrats Damage Political Discourse, Forgets He's The Editor of WND Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah complains in his June 26 column:
I really don’t think catastrophic climate change is for real – unless we’re talking about the political climate, the national discourse, the way politics in America is being waged like warfare, at least by one party.
How long has this been going on? Who started it? Can the country survive this?
Did it begin in the summer of 2017 with the shooting up of a baseball field full of Republican members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, and the near death of Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana?
Or does it go further back – perhaps to the armed attack on the Family Research Council in the fall of 2013 when Floyd Corkins, inspired by the inciteful hate speech of the Southern Poverty Law Center, tried to kill every staffer at the organization’s Washington, D.C., headquarters only to be thwarted by a heroic unarmed security guard who was wounded in the incident.
Or perhaps its seeds were planted as far back as the presidential campaign of 2008, when candidate Barack Obama instructed his supporters in impassioned, fiery language to get in the face of his opponents by lying to them that their man actually supported the Second Amendment and wanted to lower taxes.
Whatever the case, Donald Trump, his supporters, officials, staffers and Cabinet members are in the crosshairs of uncivil political warfare that is unprecedented in the modern history of America’s civil society and political discourse.
It’s thoroughly ugly, unbecoming of our national heritage and ideals. The demonic zealotry of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters and their friends in the so-called “entertainment” industry, as I wrote about yesterday, is palpable, irresponsible beyond words and irrational.
Funny, we thought it started in 2008, when Farah's WND began its eight-year war on Obama by portraying him as a foreigner with a forgedbirthcertificate -- not to mention a Nazi and even the Antichrist. Apparently Farah doesn't think that's ugly or unbecoming-- or that any anti-Obama vitriol WND has ever published fits that category. Indeed, Farah is pretending that right-wingers like him have never said anything untoward.
Nevertheless, he huffed that "the country can survive this. It may never be quite the same again, when one of the two political parties has descended to the depths of depravity, tastelessness, obscenity, vulgarity and incivility." He concluded: "Still, I fear, someone is going to get hurt because of this perversity."
We suspect Farah never had that fear when he published his flood of perverse smears of Obama.
NewsBusters' Sports Blogger Freaks Out (Again) Over ESPN Mag's Body Issue Topic: NewsBusters
Mysterious NewsBusters sports blogger Jay Maxson generally has two modes of operation: Colin Kaepernick derangement and ESPN derangement. Last year, he engaged in a massive form of the latter by freaking out over ESPN The Magazine's "body issue" featuring naked athletes but carefully shot to avoid showing naughty bits -- despite no record of ever complaining about Sports Illustrated's swimsult issue.
Maxson rectified that with his June 25 rant about this year's "body issue," in which he declares that it's worse than SI's swimsuit issue despite the fact the swimsult models aren't even athletes:
It's a well-known fact that ESPN doesn't always stick to sports. And this week The Worldwide Leader in (Liberal and Naked) Sports will prove again that it doesn't always stick to clothed athletes either. ESPN is unveiling—disrobing is a better word choice—its 10th edition of the Body Issue (online and in its magazine), and 16 current and former athletes will be featured without a stitch of clothing. For the past few days, the network website has been titillating viewers by featuring nude photos from an archive of the past nine years of body issues.
Apparently our sex-drenched culture needs one more media outlet appealing to people's prurient interests. Swimsuits and faux swimsuits painted on models sells magazines and gets clicks forSports Illustrated. ESPN one-downs SI by featuring completely buck naked athletes to raise viewership during the dog days of summer. No privates are visible on these immodest athletes; those are covered by side views and arms and legs, allowing the athletes to run, jump and cavort about with no fabric restraints at all.
He's particularly incensed about pictures of "rainbow athletes," such as two female pro basketball athletes "who are dating," complete with a sneering reference to "the world's most famous Olympic bronze medalist, Adam Rippon." (The MRC hates Adam Rippon.)
Maxson then tried to link the "body issue" to allegations of sexual harassment against ESPN employees, telling ESPN that if one allegation goes to trial, "you might want to downplay the Body Issue." But Maxon offers no proof of a link between the two that exists outside his fevered, nudity-addled brain.
WND Columnist Places A Christian's Right To Be Bigoted Against LGBT Rights Not To Suffer Bigotry Topic: WorldNetDaily
Rita Dunaway spends her June 25 WorldNetDaily column defending soccer player Jaelene Hinkle, who declined a call-up to the U.S. national women's soccer team because she didn't want to wear a jersey marking LGBT pride. Dunaway huffed that "U.S. Soccer has employed its power instead to divide, exclude and discriminate" -- despite the fact that the governing body did nothing to discriminate against Hinkle. She explained her convoluted logic:
Hinkle is in good company. Most devout Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons and Orthodox Jews would also feel constrained by their faith to express “gay pride.” So why would U.S. Soccer force players to wear the emblem of “gay pride” – a religiously divisive emblem – if its goal is to promote “acceptance and inclusion” of individuals “from all backgrounds”? Why not the emblem of a dove, for peace; a heart, for love; or the world, for global connectivity?
As it stands, U.S. Soccer’s chosen means to “promote a culture of diversity, inclusivity and global connectivity” actually excludes devout people of many different faiths from the national teams. That’s not diversity, sports fans.
This all tells us one of two things about U.S. Soccer; either its leaders have an anemic, laughably unsophisticated understanding of the world’s diverse cultures and religions, or they are dishonest bigots. Either way, whether intentional or not, U.S. Soccer is promoting the very type of exclusion it claims to oppose.
Dunaway didn't mention that Christians have promoted exclusion against the LGBT community for centuries.
Her obliviousness to anti-gay discrimination continued by declaring, "Bigotry is always wrong, regardless of its object. But taunting and jeering at a person who has walked away from a lifelong dream in order to honor her faith is worse than bigotry. It is cruel." But Hinkle was not discriminated against -- she chose to discriminate. Yet Dunaway is concerned only with the person who displayed bigotry, however benign, and not the group of people who have suffered a history of bigotry by the group to which Hinkle belongs.