Linda Harvey LGBT Derangement Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade included a float from the Broadway musical "The Prom," which is about a gay teen who wants to take her girlfriend to the high school prom over the school's objections. The production piece from the show concluded in the two lead characters kissing -- the first same-sex kiss in parade history.
Cue anti-gay activist Linda Harvey's freakout in her Nov. 22 WorldNetDailiy column:
On Thanksgiving morning at 9:00 a.m., we turned on the TV, eager to see the Ohio State marching band in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade. The famous all-brass stars of Big 10 football games were scheduled to be the leading band in the heartwarming procession down Central Park West to 34th Street.
But of course, we weren’t allowed to enjoy this moment before the incessant homosexual agenda was thrust into America’s face.
The cast of the hit Broadway musical “The Prom” performed in the first few minutes of the broadcast, smilingly introduced by NBC’s Hoda Kotb as the story of a teen girl whose high school would rather cancel prom than let her take a girlfriend to the dance. In the scene, the female performers held hands – one in a tuxedo and the other in a dress – and the closing touch was their lesbian kiss.
And of course, possibly millions of American children are watching, and the producers of the parade and the program know this. This offense, this corruption, is deliberate as the procession toward normalizing decadence marches on.
How many times have you heard activists scoff, denying there’s a “gay agenda”?
I long for the respect of youthful innocence that was once a pretty reliable standard for public broadcasts and parades. We have never been a perfect nation, but now we must monitor every influence on children, even within our own homes.
This agenda is like an airborne infection that’s suddenly everywhere. From “LGBT”-affirming church youth groups, to “gay”-affirming anti-bullying school lessons, to rainbow “pride” apparel sold at Target and Walmart during the spring and summer, to the obligatory pro-homosexual article in the daily newspaper, to disturbed transvestites reading to preschoolers in libraries. It seems to be critically important to stick it to our children, all in the name of phony “tolerance” and “acceptance,” embracing sins leading to personal disaster, societal destruction and spiritual death.
Things are about to get much worse. This is just the latest example, as Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, even with smiling affirmation of celebrities and all the brilliance of Broadway.
But there is opportunity in darkness. We can still call it what it is and shine our brightest light.
Hold your children close, teach them Who is really the One from Whom all blessings flow, and let’s do what we can to make a difference right now.
Start by contacting NBC and Macy’s.
And do not shop at Macy’s this Christmas season.
Harvey's outrage is as tedious as it is predictable.
MRC Doesn't Want To Talk About How Facebook's Kowtowing To Conservatives Undercuts Its Anti-Facebook Narrative Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long been a critic of Facebook, so you'd think it would be happy that the New York Times published an article shining a light on its dubious practices. But, weirdly, no: A Nov. 15 MRC post by Corinne Weaver described the article (to which she curiously fails to link) as a "hit piece" that "sent Facebook into a frenzy to fix its public image."
The problem, of course, is that the Times article completely undermined the MRC's narrative on Facebook.
Weaver rather benignly described the Times article as having "accused Facebook of working with conservative groups and generating stories from a conservative angle that discredited liberal activists funded by Soros, as well as Apple, and Google." In fact, it was about much more than that: the Times detailed how Facebook failed to act on messages from Donald Trump's presidential campaign that violated its hate-speech policies, dragged its feet on Russian-related activity designed to influence the 2016 presidential electionand hired conservative political consultants to deflect attention from Facebook and uncover any link between groups critical of Facebook and MRC-despised financier George Soros.
That runs contrary to the MRC's narrative, which paints Facebook as unfriendly to conservatves to the point of censoring conservative content. For instance, the MRC did a "special report" (of the not-so-specialkind, we can presume) earlier this year accusing Facebook and other social media cits of trying to "censor the conservative worldview from the public conversation." An MRC-commissioned poll in September sought to reinforce that narrative by claiming that nearly 29 percent of conservatives said they left or were considering leaving Facebook because of "censorship of conservatives." It included a quote from MRC chief Brent Bozell: "The question Facebook and other social media companies need to ask themselves is this: Do you want to be seen as an open platform for all political beliefs or would you rather be considered a left-wing public interest group that censors free speech worldwide? The latter will prove to be unbelievably costly."
In other words, the MRC is highly invested in this narrative. The Times article pretty much blew that up, pointing out how deeply Facebook is kowtowing to conservative critics. Needless to say, Weaver and the MRC didn't want to talk about that, and her post is the last we heard about this article.
For a while, anyway. A Dec. 3 MRC post by Julia Seymour returned to the article in a very narrow way: to insist that Facebook's investigation of Soros was totally justified. No, really:
Since when it is controversial for a company to research a powerful billionaire calling for it to be regulated and who could potentially impact its stock price? Since now — if the company is Facebook and its opponent is liberal billionaire George Soros.
The New York Times has become Soros’ press office now that Facebook has acknowledged looking into where his money goes. The paper has done 18 stories, columns or editorials about Facebook that also mention Soros since Nov. 15.
That was the day slightly more than two weeks ago that it ran a front-page investigative piece critical of Facebook: “Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis.” That story first mentioned the firm’s hiring of a “Republican opposition-research firm” that looked for connections between anti-Facebook protesters and the liberal billionaire.
Between Nov. 15, and Dec. 3, the Times published 11 news reports and published 7 columns or editorials in the newspaper including the editorial “Facebook Cannot Be Trusted to Regulate Itself” and a column from Michelle Goldberg headlined, “Democrats Should Un-Friend Facebook.”
Buzzfeed threw cold water on the controversy on Dec. 1, when it published a three-page document of research on Soros that firm provided to Facebook and calling it “largely innocuous.”
But it’s doubtful that the Times would have portrayed such an act as controversial at all if the scrutiny wasn’t of a prominent funder of left-wing groups. Earlier Times’ reporting led Facebook to launch a “liberal apology tour” and fire Definers Public Affairs, a “Republican-linked firm,” that it had hired. The group spread “public information about Mr. Soros’s funding of American advocacy groups critical of Facebook.”
In fact, the Buzzfeed piece notes that the document is only some of the research the oppo-research firm did for Facebook, not its entirety.
Seymour then weirdly obsessed about Soros having "broke the Bank of England," referencing it twice in her post, as if profiting from a financial gamble somehow underscores Soros' bad-guy credentials. Like Weaver, Seymour didn't want to discuss how Facebook hating Soros almost as much as the MRC does (though without the overt anti-Semitic imagery) undercuts the MRC's attacks on Facebook as not being conservative-friendly.
Jealous Much? WND's Farah Rants About Obamas Making Money Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie is not the only WorldNetDaily writer with a lingering Obama Derangement Syndrome affliction. WND editor Joseph Farah lets his derangement flag fly in his Nov. 23 column:
Want something to be exceptionally thankful for this weekend?
Be thankful Barack Obama is not your president – and that Donald Trump is.
If you don’t feel that way today, try this: Watch his clip from his appearance at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago where he stumbled through an incoherent talk on climate change (I think, you decide), doing what he does best – criticizing others for carrying around too much “hate, anger, racism” and, after stumbling around for the right word of phrase, coming up with “mommy issues.”
I’m not sure if the man is just intellectually lazy in his new life on his way to billionaire status, or consumed by hate of his successor like no other president.
What we're gonna decide is that Farah is having a massive jealousy fit over Barack and Michelle Obama making money after leaving the presidency, just like every other president has done:
Maybe you didn’t know that Obama is on the way to becoming a billionaire?
That’s what we’re learning now as this he follows the Clintons’ pathway to prosperity for essentially doing nothing.
First, someone ghostwrote a book called “Becoming” for Michelle Obama – providing an advance of $65 million, which will never earn half of it out. She also shares with him a $50 million Netflix deal and a 10-city U.S. tour and sales of merchandise connected to her autobiography.
Next, she’s being asked to speak to corporations for $225,000 a pop. Sound familiar?
That’s on top of raking in $20.5 million in salaries and other royalties for books they didn’t write between 2005 and 2016.
Forbes estimates they are already worth $135 million – not counting the speeches.
Farah mocking the Obamas for ghostwriting their books -- allegations he doesn't substantiate, by the way -- is highly ironic, given that probably the most lucrative thing Farah has ever done was ghost-write Rush Limbaugh's 1994 book "See, I told You So." We're guessing Farah has never begrudged all the money he made from that the way he lashes out at the Obamas.
And, as usual, Farah lies about Obama. The reported $65 million advance was for memoirs by both Michelle and Barack, not Michelle's book alone -- which, by the way, has become the best-selling book of 2018. That, along with the sold-out tour and merchandise sales, means that she's likely to make back her part of the advance.
That must grate on Farah, given the struggles he's had just trying to raise money to publish his own book that, even if it's successful, would make only a tiny fraction of Obama's.
Farah's hate continued:
But it’s all in the name of charity, you see. Because she gives away an astonishingly generous 10 percent to Global Girls Alliance, another Barack Obama Foundation initiative – another way to make lots of money on the misfortunes of others.
What are they doing for $50 million from Netflix? It’s a little nebulous: A multiyear deal for which they “produce a diverse mix of content, including the potential for scripted series, unscripted series, docuseries, documentaries and features,” which will be broadcast in 190 countries – like it or not.
Actually, value of the Netflix deal Farah relayed is merely high-end speculation, and it's still a small fraction of Netflix's $8 billion programming budget. And only Farah would think that a charitable organization would b e a scam, a "way to make lots of money on the misfortunes of others," solely because it's run by people he hates and spent years trying to personally destroy (only to destroy his own operation instead).
Maybe that's the real issue here. Farah's eight-year campaign to destroy Obama with birther lies backfired badly; not only are the Obamas thriving, he ruined his own "news" organization in the process. It must grate on Farah that he is basically a failure who can't admit he's failed -- that's why he lashes out at the internet "cartel" as his supposed downfall when it's really his and WND's shoddy journalism that actually caused it.
Farah still hasn't demonstrated that WND deserves to live, and continuing to rant enviously about the Obamas isn't exactly helping his case.
Divine Donald Alert: CNS Gushes Over Christian Musicians Singing In Oval Office Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com hasn't paraded President Trump's purported Judeo Christian worldview to the extent as, say, WorldNetDaily, though wacky pro-Trump rabbi Aryeh Spero has his moments. So Patrick Goodenough's gushy Nov. 15 CNS article about Christian musicians spontaneously breaking out into song during an Oval Office visit it a bit of a surprise in its divine-Donald propagandistic tone:
A “faith briefing” at the White House this week saw Christian music artists hold an impromptu worship session, singing songs of praise near the Oval Office.
In social media posts, some participants, including Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) recording artists, described learning more about the administration’s faith-based initiatives, and having what they called an remarkable experience of singing praise songs in that location.
Several phone-captured video clips were posted, included one by Christian rock and pop artist Tauren Wells showing attendees singing, without accompaniment, the Hillsong Worship song, “What a beautiful name.”
Other clips included snatches from “How great is our God” and “Thank youLord for saving my soul.”
“What a privilege to declare the name of Jesus in worship and in prayer today at the White House,” Wells posted on Instagram. “I was challenged, informed, convicted, & inspired at the faith briefing w/ many peers in the CCM industry. The church has a great opportunity to rise with grace & truth in this hour.”
Members of We Are Messengers, an Irish worship band based in Nashville, Tenn., said the visit had given them “a genuine sense of Hope for this nation.”
“God is in control and has people at the very top level of Government who are working day in and day out to reach people with the love of Christ, to raise up the lowly, to take care of widows and orphans, to re-energize communities and faith communities all across the USA,” they said. “We need to pray for this Government and unite with them in the Work they are doing.”
Goodenough got even further o the bandwagon by presenting a Trump administration Christian-pandering initiative as something more meaningful:
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was established by President George W. Bush a week after taking office in January 2001, as a way to enhance the capacity of faith-based and community groups to provide federally-funded social services, by removing legal and institutional barriers preventing them from doing so.
President Obama renamed the initiative the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and also established an advisory council.
President Trump in an executive order last May renamed it the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, to empower faith-based organizations and “promote religious freedom.”
A number of key government departments now have Faith and Opportunity directors. They include the departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veteran Affairs and USAID.
Goodenoughh even embedded links to each of those agency offices in his article. Now that's being dedicated to your propaganda.
Massie's latest anti-Obama screed is his Nov. 26 column headlined "The Obama have led blacks away from God," and Michelle Obama's new book seems to have set him off this time. He writes:
Instead of fawning over these people, black ministers should be preaching against the sin they personify. Case-in-point Michelle Obama was regaled for recently telling the world that she will, “never forgive him,” referring to President Trump during her book tour.
Where in the Bible does God’s word say it is OK to lie? Any minister with a passing familiarity of Scripture knows that God hates a liar. How do they reconcile: “These six things doth the LORD hate: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren.” (Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV) Do their Bibles omit Proverbs 22:12?
Michelle Obama told an outright lie, and even more sordid, she did so to engender hatred, which the Bible also speaks to. Matthew 6:14-15 is a statement of fact; it is not open to interpretation: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (KJV)
Michelle Obama knows that Hillary Clinton is responsible for the “birther” issue. It was Clinton’s presidential campaign that unearthed Obama’s background and brought it into the public in 2008. But Obama blames President Trump for doing it in 2011. What about Matthew 5:21-22 and the book of 1 John chapters 1 and 2 escapes these people?
Gotta love the random Bible quotes about lying and forgiveness Massie sticks in there -- this from a man who has clearly not forgiven Barack Obama for the crime of being elected president and who has told numerous malicious lies about Obama (grifter Larry Sinclair, for one, would be surprised to learn that he died suspiciously in 2011).
Also note that Massie omits the full context of Michelle Obama's words about Trump. As we've previously noted, Obama said of Trump's birther obsession: "The whole thing was crazy and mean-spirited, of course, its underlying bigotry and xenophobia hardly concealed,. But it was also dangerous, deliberately meant to stir up the wingnuts and kooks. What if someone with an unstable mind loaded a gun and drove to Washington? What if that person went looking for our girls? Donald Trump, with his loud and reckless innuendos, was putting my family’s safety at risk. And for this I’d never forgive him."
In other words, Obama was mad because the bogus birther conspiracy endangered her family. Funny how Massie doesn't think that part is newsworthy. Massie would likely be not so forgiving of someone (almost as much as he's unforgiving of Obama) if someone told lies about him that put him and his family in danger.
And, as we've also pointed out, it's revisionist history to blame Hillary for birtherism. Hillary made no public statements about it whatsoever, and her campaign never made it an official talking point. It's only when right-wing, anti-Obama outlets like WND got a hold of it that it became an public issue. It was WND, not Hillary, that fed birther conspiracies behind the scenes to Trump in 2011 -- an inconvenient fact Massie clearly doesn't want to talk about.
Meanwhile, the hate-filled Massie fills the rest of his column with rants that fulfill its headline:
I ask those blacks who are drunk with adulation for the Obamas, what have they done to help black people?
Under Obama, eight-year White House occupant, blacks were unemployed – but they did get Obama-phones and food stamps. Under Obama, blacks were not even the recipients of Michelle Obama’s throwaway clothes. She lived high off the proverbial hog. She was a jet-setting superstar taking usufruct to unprecedented heights.
The Obamas support the murder of babies, i.e., abortion, they support homosexuality, and they support gluttony and avarice. How can blacks that consider themselves as clergy abide such agendas? Where in their Bibles does God sanction such behavior?
Not only have the Obamas not done anything to help the very demographic that worships them, but they have knowingly led a supposedly religious people away from the Lord.
Can there be any wonder how it is that the most religious demographic in America is the most deeply immersed in lifestyles that have nothing to do with religious lives? Satan has blinded the people and used his minions to lead blacks far from the Lord. That is, unless black church leaders are prepared to argue that sin for blacks isn’t the same as for everyone else.
It's clear the hypocritical Massie will never apply Proverbs 6:16-19 and Matthew 6:14-15 to himself.
AIM's Double Standard On How Botched Facts Are Treated Topic: Accuracy in Media
Brian McNicoll complains in a Nov. 19 Accuracy in Media post:
TMZ got one fact wrong in its original rush story on Michael Avenatti being arrested for felony domestic violence – and quickly corrected it.
But that gave the rest of the mainstream media enough room to discount the allegations against the attorney.
In “Michael Avenatti Arrested for Felony Domestic Violence … I’LL BE ‘FULLY EXONERATED,’ the celebrity/show-biz-focused outlet originally reported the woman Avenatti allegedly struck was his former wife.
“We were initially told by our sources the alleged victim was Avenatti’s estranged wife,” TMZ wrote atop an updated piece. “We now know it was not. The incident involved a different woman.”
McNicoll is actually complaining that others do what AIM does. Compare McNicoll's tone with Carrie Sheffield's tone in a Dec. 3 AIM post on a different media outlet and a different fact that had to be fixed:
NPR was forced to correction append its report titled “Trump Jr.’s 2017 Testimony Conflicts with Cohen’s Account of Russian Talks.”
NPR reporter Philip Ewing claimed that Donald Trump Jr.’s testimony conflicted with attorney Michael Cohen’s testimony about the timeline of possible real estate deals that were in tentative talks among some Russians and the Trump Organization. NPR had conflated two separate real estate negotiations with two separate parties, one that included “the Agalarov family, Emin and his father Aras,” that ended prior to President Trump launching his presidential campaign.
The NPR correction came after online pressure from conservatives, including Andrew Surabian, who tweeted: “Will @nprpolitics retract this blatantly false story and apologize to @DonaldJTrumpJr? Or are they ok with misleading their audience and spreading verified #FakeNews all over social media?”
So TMZ merely "got one fact wrong" in a story on a person conservatives hate -- and merely a "misleading" graphic from its apparently subjective rating system -- while NPR got accused of #FakeNews for getting a fact wrong in a story about a conservative darling and the full "fake news" rating, despite also correcting the record. Funny how that works.
CNS Labors to Spin Away Trump Failing To Go To Arlington Cemetery on Veterans Day Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is such a loyal pro-Trump operation that it even spins his screw-ups to make them look not so bad.
A Nov. 19 CNS article by Melanie Arter featured President Trump admitting that he should have gone to Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day, as is traditional for presidents. But she was quick to frame criticism of Trump's failure to do so as having a partisan motivation, claiming "liberal media pundits dumped on Trump" for failing to go.
In fact, criticism came from across the Political spectrum, as compiled in an article at the conservative Daily Caller. Even the decidedly not-liberal Reagan Batallion website pointed out that President George W. Bush went to Arlington in the rain -- rain being the cited reason Trump didn't go. And right-leaning political pundit Ana Navarro highlighted how Trump mostly escaped criticism for his failure to go when President Obama would have been excoriated had he done the same thing. Indeed, Arter's article is the first mention of Trump's failure by CNS.
Arter then went even further, finding "at least one war veteran said he's not offended by President Trump's decision to skip the Arlinton ceremony": Dan Crenshaw, a newly elected Republican congressman, who spouted Trump talking points about raising military pay and "giving us the equipment we need" as being more important than showing up at Arllington on Veterans Day.
Did WND Know The Seth Rich Conspiracy Was Fake News All Along? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last week, the Daily Beast reported that Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone, despite spending the past two years promoting the conspiracy theory that Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was murdered because he leaked private DNC emails to WikiLeaks, knew as early as August 2016 -- less than a month after Rich's death in apparent botched robbery attempt -- that Russian hackers, not Rich, gave those emails to WikiLeaks.
This raises some uncomfortable questions for WorldNetDaily, one of the chief promoters of this bogus conspiracy theory. Corsi was an employee of WND until January 2017, when he moved to Alex Jones' InfoWars.
WND was quick to embrace the conspiracy theory that Rich was murdered over the emails. An August 2016 article by Bob Unruh published a week after Corsi knew Rich had no role in leaking the DNC emails touted how Rich was among the "people with tangential connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton have died in unusual circumstances" and repeated the suggestion from right-wing columnist Rachel Alexander -- most recently prominent at WND for painting corrupt right-wing ex-congressman Steve Stockman as an innocent victim of the "deep state" -- linking his death to the leak of the DNC emails. Even the slow disintegration of the Rich conspiracy theory on other fronts hasn't moved WND to correct the record.
Now we know that at least one WND employee at the time it embraced the Rich conspiracy theory knew the story was false as WND promoted it. It's possible, if not likely, that others at WND knew that as well.
In short: WND knew or should have know the Rich conspiracy was fake news, yet it spent two years promoting it as if it was real.
Rich's family and spokespeople have not been shy about filing lawsuits against those who promulgated the false conspiracy theory (even if they don't always succeed). It's clear that with this revelation, Corsi and WND now face legal liability for pushing a story they knew or should have known was false from the get-go.
WND has not reported on this development, let alone admit its implications. This refusal to take responsibility for its mistakes -- or, in this case, an apparent decision to knowingly publish a false story -- is a big reason why WND has not yet demonstrated that it deserves to live beyond its ongoing financial crises.
MRC Outraged That Female Genital Mutiliation Law Overturned, Silent On The Conservative Principle Invoked Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Bill D'Agostino huffed in a Nov. 21 post:
Liberal cable and broadcast networks have completely ignored a Detroit Judge’s finding that federal laws against female genital mutilation are unconstitutional. As of noon on Wednesday, Fox News remains the only television news outlet to have reported on this controversial decision.
The Detroit Free Press announced the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM [Female Genital Mutilation].
On its face, a Judge overturning a federal law against female genital mutilation sounds newsworthy. But although CNN at least is aware of the ruling (as evidenced by November 20 article on their website), they and other TV news networks have determined that it is not worth the time to inform their viewers of this court decision. Why might that be?
As outraged as D'Agostino is about the decision, he's curiously reluctant to explain the judge's reasoning -- perhaps because it involves a bedrock conservative principle.
As an actual news outlet explained, Friedman stated that "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," adding: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with longstanding tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress."
Federalism is generally adhered to by conservatives as a principle faithful to the Constitution by letting more issues be handled on a state-by-state level than mandated on a federal level. In other words, Friedman was simply applying a conservative principle to the issue of female genital mutilation and ruling that it should be regulated on the state level (not unlike what conservatives want to do with abortion by agitating for the repeal of Roe v. Wade).
The MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, did a slightly better job. A Nov. 21 article by Patrick Goodenough did explain that Friedman ruled that the practice "is for the states to regulate, not Congress," but allowed conservative activists to attack the decision without explaining that the judge invoked a conservative principle.
Then And Now, Charlie Daniels Edition Topic: CNSNews.com
So, will we ever be able to have a sensible conversation between the diverse political and social factions?
Will we ever again be able to sit down at the same table and actually work things out?
Well, at least in my humble opinion, the only way that’s going to happen is for both sides to put aside the animosity, the animus, the preconceived, the distrust and forget the old battle scars and try to see some merit in each other’s opinions, and after having examined both sides of the issues in question, approach them with common sense, make a fair and honest assessment and find a point of agreement.
This would require a lot of flexibility and give and take on both sides.
Being a Bible-believing Christian, I hate globalism with a passion.
Globalism is the kingdom of the antichrist, and it happens when the nations of the world hand their sovereignty and power over to a person, masquerading as an angel of light, who seems to have all the answers to the world’s problems, but is actually the embodiment of evil.
That is the ultimate act of mankind putting their trust in other men rather than Almighty God.
That's when the term "hell to pay" becomes a reality.
Had everything gone according to plan, Hillary Clinton would have been elected, and all the corruption would have been buried way down deep. Two more ultraliberal rubber-stamp Supreme Court Justices would have been appointed, the borders would have been completely opened up and a method developed for granting these individuals citizenship – and voting rights granted to undocumented immigrants – and our government would have turned into a one-party monopoly, without any way to defeat it.
Guns would have eventually been confiscated, tax cuts never passed, the military gutted, coal mining banned, domestic fracking and petroleum exploration abandoned and business-killing federal restrictions put in force. Yes, entitlements would balloon. The national debt would double, perhaps triple, and eventually cause the kind of inflation we can’t even imagine.
The American dollar would have ceased to be the official trading currency around the world, and America would have to buy whatever the preferred currency would be to pay for imports. Environmental groups would have finagled legislation that would make farming unprofitable, and carbon credits would have driven fuel prices out of sight. Abortion mills would have become as common as fast food restaurants, and religious rights would have been severely curtailed.
It seems that – for the most part – political dialogue in America has deteriorated from discussion and debate to, name calling, catfights and one-uppance contests, with everybody more intent on having the last word, than proving a point.
We – and I include myself in this group of verbal hyperbolics – instead of responding to some slight of someone on our side with a sensible reason why the accusation is untrue or unfair, allow our dander to rise, and we come up with some overinflated criticism of something their fair-haired boy, or girl, has done, or said. They respond in kind, and the incendiary battle is joined, waxing more caustic, more unproductive and ridiculous in the process.
I am not pointing fingers, as I have been guilty of a toxic gilding of the lily and responding with more heat than any civilized conversation can handle.
When the battle lines are drawn by ideology, the heated rhetoric fanned by an agenda-driven media, and human nature being what it is, it’s hard not to fly off the handle, to start with a prejudiced view of the other person’s opinion, with a preconceived attitude toward the other person and their point.
But can we not just let our differences be settled by courteous dialogue? We might actually learn something about each other. And goodness knows we need to.
The odds are too high to let temper and implacability take over.
Maxine Waters’ maniac raving, encouraging the harassment of those who disagree with her and her party’s politics is motivated by the same evil purposes as the creation of the Brown Shirts and could give birth to a very nasty movement, a “law” unto itself and totally out of anybody’s control.
The purpose, to physically suppress, terrorize and hound political opponents, with complete political dominance by one party is the goal.
So, Maxine, Hillary, Corey and all the rest of you rabble-rousers, it’s time to call off the dogs, to rein in the fledgling brown shirts before you foment something you can’t possibly control that can only end in a kind of violence you can’t even imagine.
Remember, America: the same political bunch who are willing to sic the mobs on you are the same bunch that wants much stricter gun laws.
Folks, there are those who are trying to steal your country, to make it into their deformed image of a socialist servant to a central global government that would control every facet of your life, and if they win at the ballot box, there is little that can be done to stop them.
MRC Glosses Over Nasty Conservative Tweet To Bash 'The View' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Kristine Marsh complains in a Nov. 16 post:
Friday on The View, the hosts slammed conservatives as racists that were “obsessed” with the media’s favorite Democrat socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. While they brought up the topic because of a stupid tweet from a conservative writer which mocked Cortez for her clothing choices, they used that tweet to accuse the entire conservative movement of having a racist agenda and obsession with the new congresswoman.
Notice how quick Marsh is to gloss over that "stupid tweet," as if it merits none of the scrutiny the MRC would give a stupid tweet from a "liberal" writer. Even the video clip accompanied Marsh's post omits any direct reference to the tweet.
Marsh won't tell you that the tweet was from Eddie Scarry, a reporter for thet conservative Washington Examiner -- with whom the MRC has a deal that started in 2012 to promote a weekly "Mainstream Media Scream" through columnist Paul Bedard -- who tweeted a picture of Ocasio-Cortez wearing a business suit and snarked: "I’ll tell you something: that jacket and coat don’t look like a girl who struggles" -- an implication that she should not have dressed so nice for her new job, which goes well beyond Marsh's claim that he "mocked Cortez for her clothing choices." Scarry was pilloried for it online, and even his fellow Examiner co-workers distanced themselves from him. In the wake of the tweet, the Examiner pulled Scarry off the "news" side (raise your hand if you didn't know that the Examiner had a "news" side where there there was purportedly not to be any bias exhibited) to the commentary side.
One can't help but think that Marsh was protecting Scarry in order not to have to criticize a publication with which her employer has a promotional deal and, thus, jeopardize that deal.
But Marsh wasn't done complaining, going on to insist that conservatives aren't really obsessed with ocasio-Cortez at all: "While no one at the table mentioned it, the media is far more obsessed with Cortez than conservatives are. Even the hosts of The View were enamored with her when she appeared on their show months ago."
Actually, conservatives in general, and Fox News in particular, are verymuchobsessed with Ocasio-Cortez. The Ocasio-Cortez derangement syndrome is so prevalent among conservatives that Washington Times columnist (and former WorldNetDaily reporter) Cheryl Chumley ranted that politicians like her with socialist leanings "don't belong in American politics" and that allowing her to serve in the House is "an abomination to the Constitution."
That's what you call obsession. Marsh simply doesn't want to admit it.
Jesse Lee Peterson vs. 'Evil' Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily columnist Jesse Lee Peterson loves to trotsout the word "evil" to attack anyone he disagrees with that he has rendered the word almost meaningless from overuse. To wit, his work in just the past couple months:
But to evil people like [Media Matters writers] Talia [Lavin] and Madeline [Peltz], truth sounds like lies, and love sounds like hate. So they describe my content as a “torrent of anti-black, anti-gay, and misogynistic hate.” -- Sept. 9
In fact, many women are evil – especially “educated” liberal women. ... The Democratic Party is evil. ... The evil #MeToo movement unearthed a pro-abortion participant of the Dirty Women’s March – a liberal California psychology professor. This evil liar emerged from the gates of hell to accuse the judge of “attempted rape.” -- Sept. 23
Look at the women who are aggressively going after Brett Kavanaugh: Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (a nasty old woman who helped orchestrate the attack on Kavanaugh); Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. (wants to run for president); Kamala Harris, D-Calif. (wants to run for president); and Mazie Hirono, D-Hi. (wants men to “shut up”) are all evil. ... The Democrats are evil and they crave power. -- Sept. 30
We watched evil, egotistical university students violate the rights of conservative classmates who peacefully protested on behalf of the judge’s innocence. ... What is the root of all this cowardly pandering by males, and the blind rage of evil women? Unforgiveness. ... Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., made concessions for evil after angry activist women confronted him in an elevator. ... Political correctness is evil. -- Oct. 7
Until Trump, the country was nearly swallowed up by evil. He’s standing against the madness, and now evil is desperate. ... The Democratic Party is evil, and anyone who votes for Democrats supports evil. ... We’ve all seen how extreme and evil the media is – CNN, New York Times, Washington Post and other leftwing outlets. -- Oct. 21
The Democrat Party is evil. They are worse today than ever before – worse than during slavery, Jim Crow, lynch mobs, or the heyday of the KKK. ... I’ve written about Oprah Winfrey before. Like most people, she’s doing the best she can. But she is on the side of evil – she is a deceitful, weak, wicked person. -- Nov. 4
[Detroit School] Board member LaMar Lemmons (an evil, lying man), told Washington Post that having Dr. Carson’s name on a school is “synonymous with having Trump’s name on our school in blackface.” -- Nov. 18
That's a lot of evil -- and, conveniently, they are all Peterson's political enemies. He, of course, does not see his own evil in his obsessive hatred of President Obama, his issues with women (note how many of his "evil" targets above are women) and his insistence on sounding like a whitesupremacist.
CNS Rushes to Defend Acting Attorney General Topic: CNSNews.com
Lots of questions were raised about President Trump's appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general. But despite being a self-proclaimed "news" organization, CNSNews.com wasn't going to raise them -- to the contrary, its goal was to defend Whitaker's appointment and his conservative bona fides, particularly in opposition to Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation.
A Nov. 7 article by managing editor Michael W. Chapman highlighted how Whitaker has "stressed that the Special Counsel was limited to investigating 'matters that involved any potential links to and coordination between two entities -- the Trump campaign and the Russian government,' and Trump family finances are outside that instruction."
On Nov. 12, Melanie Arter touted how Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said that Whitaker was "appropriately appointed legally" and does not need to recuse himself from the Mueller probe despite being highly critical of it because "you don't recuse somebody because they have opinions different than the people they are overseeing."
Chapman returned to gush that Whitaker once made the conservatively correct statement that "judges at the federal level, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, should have 'a biblical view of justice' and a proper understanding of 'natural law and natural rights.'" Chapman failed to note Whitaker's implication that only Christians should be judges and Jews, Muslims and atheists should not be.
The next day, he cheered that Whitaker "said in a 2016 interview that there is enough evidence 'in the public domain' to warrant the appointment of a 'special prosecutor' to investigate the Clinton Foundation."
Arter called on former Attorney General Michael Mukasey to claim that Trump has the right to appoint who he wants as the interim attorney general 'within certain limits.'"
CNS did note some of the controversy around Whitaker's appointment and his dubious past, but framed it as partisan criticsm rather than legitimate concern by having the criticism come out of the mouths of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
So we're not going to see a lot of in-depth reporting on the shady wingnut-welfare nonprofit he ran (CNS published a 2017 article highlighting a statement Whitaker made as head of that nonprofit) or his involvement in and even more shady patent-promotion company. That would hurt the narrative, after all.
WND's Farah Claims His Book Is 'Sold Out' -- But Is It Really? Topic: WorldNetDaily
After months of begging for hundreds of thousands of dollars from his readers to print a massive first printing of his new book citing demand he never substantiated -- money which he apparently failed to receive -- WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is doing what a smart businessman would have done in the first place: printing what he could and then claiming they sold out in an attempt to induce demand by invoking scarcity.
It’s everywhere – not just in the New Testament, but in every book of the Old, documents a new red-hot holiday title.
In fact, “The Gospel in Every Book of the Old Testament” is SOLD OUT, says the author, Joseph Farah – unlikely to be back in stock in a major supplies before the New Year.
But with interest in the book peaking, Farah sees a great opportunity for believers everywhere to help spread the Good News.
“Spreading the Gospel is participatory,” Farah says. “Jesus commanded all of His followers to take part personally in this work. And we are encouraging believers to do just that with their support of this book, which shows the often-overlooked redemptive, restorative, merciful and graceful side of the Hebrew Scriptures we should expect from one unchanging Creator.”
Just one little problem: there doesn't seem to be an actual problem obtaining Farah's book right now. The page for it at the WND online store does not state that it's sold out, and Amazon (which the WND store curiously links to) not only has it in stock, it also lists at this writing 35 new copies and 31 used copies through independent sellers. And, of course, there's the digital edition of the book, which never goes out of stock.
Yet Farah insists on making the scarcity case:
Partnering with missions organization Gospel for All Nations, WND and Farah are asking churches, individuals to make tax-deductible contributions and grants to keep this book widely available and in print.
“We need help,” says Farah. “There’s a demand for hundreds of thousands of copies right now in the marketplace but we can’t keep up with it. That’s not because of any special skills on my part but rather the uplifting message that reveals the miraculously consistent character if a loving God.”
As before, Farah offers no substantiation for the claim that "there’s a demand for hundreds of thousands of copies right now in the marketplace." And if Amazon's sales rankings are any indication, that demand doesn't exist; the hardcover version is ranked at No. 10,168, and in the Kindle store, where it's No. 43,848 overall and even in the incredibly narrow category of "Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Religion & Spirituality > Christian Books & Bibles > Bibles >More Translations," it's still ranked only 26th.
The article closes with the usual appeal to give a tax-deductible donation to Gospel for All Nations to support the book (WND has never released the details of the agreement that permits this), give directly to WND, or "order it in unlimited number of digital e-book copies or wherever the hardcover can be found."
But it looks like hardcover copies can be found pretty easily -- and Farah is merely playing his same money game, just from a slightly different angle.
MRC's Gayle King Derangement Syndrome Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has never liked "CBS This Morning" co-host Gayle King because she's not a conservative and because she's friends with Oprah Winfrey and the Obamas. The MRC's obsession with King has really ratcheted up in the past month.
An Oct. 31 post by Curtis Houck sneered that King was a "Oprah Winfrey gal pal, and Obama donor and family friend" and complained about a "syrupy" and "gushing" profile of her in the New York Times. The next day, Scott Whitlock complained about "CBS’s Tangled Conflict of Interest With Oprah, Gayle King, and Democrats," since Winfrey is also a CBS contributor by way of "60 Minutes" who occasionally steps away for political work.
Houck returns to claim there were "seven instances" in which King showed her "liberal bias" during her coverage of the midterm elections. These included King pondering whethercelebrity endorsements helped Democratic candidates and pointing out the fact that many people don't think President Trump was telling the truth when he fearmongered about the migrant caravan, neither of which are "liberal bias."
On Nov. 12 Whitlock went on a tirade against both King and Winfrey:
Just 12 days after CBS special correspondent Oprah Winfrey “stepped away” to campaign for Democrat Stacey Abrams in Georgia, Winfrey is back on the network and you’ll never guess what she’s doing: Praising a Democrat. Winfrey’s best friend, Gayle King, introduced Oprah on Monday's CBS This Morning to reveal the next book club selection: Michelle Obama’s new autobiography.
Just to reiterate, Gayle King, an Obama and Democratic donor, introduced Winfrey, an Obama and Democratic donor to talk about how great Michelle Obama’s new book is.
Whitlock also complained about King's "lack of transparency"in not disclosing that she's an editor for Oprah's magazine -- an ironic and hypocritical claim since the MRC's own promotion of Bill Donohue regularly fails to disclose that MRC chief Brent Bozell is on the board of advisors of Donohue's Catholic League.
Two days later, Whitlock had upgraded that "conflict of interest" to full-on "collusion," grousing that "Democrat Winfrey and Democratic donor/co-host Gayle King have devoted 22 minutes and 44 seconds (since Monday) to the former First Lady’s new book, Becoming."
And on Nov. 26, Whitlock returned to King derangement mode, this time managing not to include Winfrey or the Obamas:
CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King on Monday prompted Senator Bernie Sanders, hyping his liberal policy prescriptions and encouraging him to attack Republicans. None of the co-hosts bothered to identify Sanders as a socialist or even a leftist. Instead, co-host Norah O'Donnell introduced the leftist as a “political independent,” touting: “Sanders, who was just reelected as a political independent, is pushing a bold agenda that includes protecting DACA recipients and comprehensive immigration reform.”
Whitlock and the rest of the MRC is never this critical of Fox News hosts who have conflicts of interests and give gushy interviews to President Trump and other conservatives.