CNS' Zombie 'Non-Believers' Story Topic: CNSNews.com
Shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, CNSNews.com tried (and failed) to make a big deal out of Obama noting that America is a nation of, among other things, "non-believers." Even the normally conservative religious people CNS consulted didn't bite instead praising Obama for being inclusive and acknowledging our country's diversity.
But just like a villain in a horror movie, it seems, a failed right-wing attack is never really dead. Which may be the only logical explanation for why CNS editor Terry Jeffrey built his Aug. 25 column around the "non-believer" attack.
The only new things Jeffrey brings to it is a complaint that "a miniscule 0.7 percent of American adults—or 1,621,000 out of 228,182,000--are atheists" and a baseless claim that referencing nonbelievers "surely does not promote the American cause in the Islamic world—where our radical Muslim enemies, starting with al-Qaida, falsely claim Americans are infidels."
Some failed things are better left dead, something Jeffrey apparently hasn't figured out yet.
New Article: Ann Coulter Doesn't Hate Gays Enough for WorldNetDaily Topic: WorldNetDaily
WND drops Coulter as a speaker for its big conference, setting off a war of words that shows just how anti-gay Joseph Farah and crew really are. Read more >>
An Aug. 23 NewsBusters post by P.J. Gladnick attacks New York magazine for publishing a "hit piece" article on businessmen Charles and David Koch over the alleged "thought crime" of "contributing to conservative causes."
Gladnick fails to mention that his publisher has taken Koch money as well. According to Conservative Transparency, the Media Research Center has accepted nearly $10,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Koch Family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.
Gladnick also insists that the Center for Public Integrity is "a left-wing group which is funded by the aforementioned George Soros." But that supposed poolitical affiliation is doubtful -- as we documented, CPI underwrote the reporting that went into WorldNetDaily dubious hit job on Al Gore in the 2000 election, which drew an actual $165 million libel lawsuit from a Tennessee car dealer smeared in the article series. WND eventually admitted that the charges were false and settled the case out of court for an undisclosed sum.
AIM Admits Wash. Times' Coverage Is Ideology Driven Topic: Accuracy in Media
An Aug. 25 Accuracy in Media blog post by Don Irvine on the possibility that Rev. Sun Myung Moon will take over the Washington Times from his son led to some reminiscing on Don Irvine's part, who spills the beans on just how ideology-driven its news coverage was:
The Times started modestly in May of 1982 as a conservative alternative to the Washington Post though in the rush to launch Moon hired many former staffers of the defunct Washington Star many of whom were more interested in having a job than sharing the ideology of Moon.
That initially hampered the paper as liberals and conservatives fought internally on the stance it should take on certain issues. I recall one conversation I had with a friend who worked there during those first few years who told me he was having a discussion about the Sandinistas in Nicaragua with a couple of other people at the national desk and that he was the only one that was against them.
As time went on the Times often took hard line conservative stance especially during the Clinton years and scooped the Washington Post on more than one occasion to the consternation of the Post’s executive editor Ben Bradlee.
Of course, it's not news that the Washingto Times is heavily conservative. But Irvine's admission that there were issues with some journalists who were apparently more interested in reporting the news instead of pushing Moon's "ideology" -- and that AIM apparently endorses ideology over news -- reveals a lot about the Times (and a little about how AIM doesn't really care all that much about accuracy in media).
Klein Puts Words in Rauf's Mouth Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 24 WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein carries the headline "Ground Zero imam pushes 'eradication' of Jewish state."
But Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who wants to build an Islamic cultural center near the Ground Zero site in New York, never said "eradication." In fact, the only person using it in the article is Klein himself:
The controversial imam behind a proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero has advocated a plan that is widely regarded here as promoting the eradication of Israel as a Jewish state.
In uncovered audio, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf pushes for a "one state" solution of Jews and Arabs sharing the same country.
While the idea may sound moderate to those unfamiliar with Mideast politics, such a proposal, which has been touted by Palestinian leaders, is seen by Israel as pressing for its destruction as a Jewish state. The population of Israeli Arabs combined with incoming Palestinians would cause Arabs to outnumber Jews, thus changing the Jewish character of the country.
Speaking at a recorded Australian lecture series in July 2005, Rauf outlined his views on Israel:
"The differences, perhaps, may lie on whether the solution lies in the two-state solution or in a one-state solution. I believe that you had someone here recently who spoke about having a one land and two people's solution to Israel.
And I personally – my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. So if we address the underlying issue, if we figure out a way to create condominiums, to condominiamise Israel and Palestine so you have two peoples co-existing on one state, then we have a different paradigm which will allow us to move forward."
Such a "one state" solution has been called for in the past by Palestinian and Arab leaders, while Israeli officials have warned it would bring about the country's destruction.
Klein fails to offer the full context in which Rauf made his statement -- all that is quoted, in text and in the audio, is only the supposedly offending claim. Klein also offers no evidence that the idea Rauf forwarded is "widely regarded" as "promoting the eradication of Israel" -- in fact, he quotes no one specifically reacting to Rauf's idea.
Further, Klein fails to note, as Media Matters does, that former right-wing Likud Party official Moshe Arens has pointed out that Israel is "already a binational state, and also a multicultural and multi-sector state," and that Likud, which currently leads Israel's ruling coalition, is discussing alternatives to a two-state solution.
But remember, Klein is a sympathizer of far-right Israeli politics and has declared that he "agree[s] with some of the sentiments of Rabbi Meir Kahane" -- the most prominent of which was expulsion of all Arabs from Israel, as well as Gaza and the West Bank.
CNS' Catholic Conflict of Interest Topic: CNSNews.com
An Aug. 24 CNSNews.com article by Pete Winn touts criticism of President Obama's upcoming speech at New Orleans' Xavier University, a Catholic school, by Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, which Winn describes as "a lay Catholic educational organization."
But Winn doesn't disclose that his boss, Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell, is on the board of directors of the Cardinal Newman Society.
We detailed how CNS similarly failed to disclose this important fact when covering the group's criticism of Obama's speech at Notre Dame last year.
MRC's Hypocritical Attack on Left-Wing Radio Hosts Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has issued a report by Rich Noyes asserting that liberal radio hosts are "The Real Radio Hatemongers," as opposed to conservative radio hosts. Of course, the MRC has to overlook a few things to reach that conclusion.
First, Noyes complains:
For two decades, conservative radio hosts have been under assault from the establishment media as mean-spirited, divisive and a menace to civil discourse. After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Bryant Gumbel smarmily insinuated that conservative broadcasters were the real villains: “Never do most of the radio hosts encourage outright violence, but the extent to which their attitudes may embolden and encourage some extremists has clearly become an issue.” Then-CBS anchor Dan Rather smeared: “You can turn on your radio in any city and still dial up hate talk: extremist, racist and violent rhetoric, from the hosts and those who call in.”
A dozen years later, ex-NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw was still hammering away: “The problem with talk radio is they mock anyone else’s point of view, and they do it often in a mindless fashion....We’ve lost the ability to have civil discourse in America, and it’s a big cancer on our political system as well.”
When conservative hosts say something that liberals want to paint as out of bounds — or when the Left falsifies quotes to impugn them — the news media seize the opportunity to stoke the fires of outrage. Journalists also have no problem heaping epithets on individual hosts. Sean Hannity is a “conservative junkyard dog,” according to CBS’s Morley Safer. Mark Levin is an “angry voice” speaking to “the wingnuts,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews claimed. Time’s Joe Klein blasted both Hannity and Glenn Beck as “poisonous helium balloons” who peddle “hateful crap.” When radio host Bill Cunningham dared call then-presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama by his full name in 2008, CNN’s Anderson Cooper branded it “sleazy campaigning” from “a two-bit radio host.”
Missing from Noyes' report is any attempt to disprove those criticisms, or even any specific quote from those conservative hosts. Noyes continues:
Yet the “news” media that have gone out of their way to demonize conservative hosts have had virtually nothing to say about the vile and vicious rhetoric that spills forth from the Left’s leading radio talk show hosts. MSNBC even gave Ed Schultz his own program in 2009, bringing his extremist rhetoric to an even wider audience.
And liberals like Bill Press don’t seem at all bothered by the vitriol emanating from his side of the airwaves. In the acknowledgments of Toxic Talk, Press went out of his way to praise his liberal comrades: “There may not be many national progressive talk show hosts, but the few who do broadcast every day are world-class. I’m proud to be in the company of Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, and Mike Malloy — and I’m in awe of their strong voices on the air.”
But the MRC has done the exact same thing -- demonize liberal hosts while giving conservative hosts a pass for their offensive words. As we've detailed, the MRC -- despite its own anti-obsenity agenda -- couldn't get worked up about Rush Limbaugh's repeated references to anal sex on his show.
Further, none of the liberal hosts the MRC is attacking has anywhere near the audience or corporate promotional backing of the top right-wing hosts. The highest-rated hosts targeted by the MRC -- Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann -- have only one-sixth the audience of the top right-wing talker, Rush Limbaugh. Their syndicator, Dial Global, has a much smaller presence than Premiere Radio Networks, the syndicator of the top three radio hosts, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. The report's biggest target, Mike Malloy, self-syndicates his show.
The MRC seems to have overlooked that the reason liberal talkers get so little attention in the media is because their audiences are proportionally small. That, coupled with the MRC's refusal to hold conservatives accountable for their words -- or even to acknowledge that they make controversial remarks too -- shows that this report is too hypocritical to be taken seriously.
If Obama's politics reflect his faith, his fruit is rotten by the very standards of the faith he professes.
Does a "devout" or "committed" Christian reflect the following values?
The most radically pro-abortion record of any U.S. senator or president in our history
The most radical pro-sexual deviancy record of any president in his policy and appointments
Intimate knowledge of and participation in Islamic worship practices
Lies and deception used as tools to further his agenda
Embracement of Marxist economic and political practices
No. Furthermore, pastors like Hunter and Caldwell who serve as spiritual lapdogs to Obama are even more culpable for giving him cover. They are much like the clergy of Hitlerian Germany and the "Positive Christianity" that represented complete acquiescence to and control by the Nazi state.
It is evident that Barack Hussein Obama is neither a practicing Christian nor practicing Muslim, but an opportunistic politician whose beliefs are shrouded within his political philosophy. He is a religious chameleon – not the first, certainly – whose family, heritage, actions and philosophy are much more pro-Islam than pro-Christianity, however.
Progressives and liberal have long realized that to achieve the abolition of man, society must dispense with Natural Law, objective morality, the republic and God. Only then can state power be used by these utopian socialists as a means to transform the world and human nature with it. Enter President Barack Obama, a utopian socialist who frequently and arrogantly proclaims that he will "fundamentally transform America."
In modern political terms, the seminal question the voters should have asked themselves in November 2008 was: Obama wants to fundamentally transform American into what? Now it may be forever too late to prevent the abolition of man; to redeem ourselves away from Obama's soft tyranny and into a republic again.
If "being as vague as possible" is Obama's political advice to himself and others, he sure hasn't followed it with either his presidential commitment to pro-Islamic brawls or in his past anti-Christian rants. Remember, this is the president who gave this 2009 Cairo creed, emphatically stating to the Middle Eastern world that it was "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Yet, when it comes to Christianity, he has actually done just the opposite. Two years after his interview with Chicago Sun Times religion reporter Cathleen Falsani, on June 28, 2006, then-Sen. Obama publicly perpetuated negative stereotypes of Christianity and defamed the religion and the words of its founder. From the pulpit of a church, speaking to a live audience about religious diversity, Obama sarcastically belittled America's Judeo-Christian heritage and degraded its adherents with trite remarks typical of any atheistic antagonist, saying things like: "Whatever we were, we are no longer a Christian nation," "The dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever," "Religion doesn't allow for compromise," "The Sermon on the Mount [is] a passage that is so radical that our own defense department wouldn't survive its application" and "To base our policy making upon such commitments [as moral absolutes] would be a dangerous thing." (You must see the YouTube video: "Barack Obama on the importance of a secular government.")
That diatribe is nothing short of a pure unadulterated rallying cry for antagonists of Christianity.
Is there a question about his affiliation with Islam? Yes.
Because our country was attacked on 9/11 by militant Islamists. They're the enemy, and American citizens have concerns that there might be an element of sympathy for them on the part of a Muslim if he were elected president.
That may not be politically correct, but given what we do not know about Barack Obama, it shouldn't surprise anyone, and what we do know associates him closely with Islam.
He was born to a Muslim father, which makes him Muslim by birth. He was enrolled in elementary school as a Muslim. Many of his friends and advisers have been Muslim. He's said the Muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful sound in the world. He never goes to church and is never seen with a Bible.
Not enough to indict him, but enough to raise doubts.
There's a litany of unanswered questions about Obama – the man and his life – which, for anyone else in politics or anywhere else for that matter, would have to be answered.
America is in need of truly godly leaders – and the fact that we are lacking same is evidenced by the condition our country finds itself in today. America is rapidly becoming a place where Christians need not apply. The country is the recipient of what the church is producing. If Obama had spent 20 years under a truly God-fearing, Bible-preaching, Christ-filled pastor, would we today have these questions? Obviously, we cannot say with absolute certainty that wouldn't be the case – but I submit the chances greatly favor that we wouldn't.
A true Christian is more concerned about the eternal benefits of service than about endorsing behaviors and teachings that are antithetical to the God of Scripture. God doesn't care what color a person is, nor whether you are a man, woman or child – He cares that we accept His Son, lead others to Him, and live Christ-centered lives that make others want to be like "that" which they see in us.
Specific to that point, I see nothing in Obama I want to be like.
Better Late Than Never: Newsmax Endorses McCain Topic: Newsmax
An Aug. 24 Newsmax editorial endorses John McCain in his Republican primary for his Arizona Senate seat over J.D. Hayworth.
But Newsmax is a little late to the party -- the election is today as well. Newsmax endorsed Bill McCollum for the Florida governor's race over Rick Scott in the Republican primary -- which is also today -- on Aug. 9. That allowed Newsmax to slant its coverage in favor of McCollum and against Scott, something it has not noticably done in the McCain-Hayworth race.
Newsmax' tardy endorsement of McCain, at a time when it could not possibly affect the race, suggests that it was not an enthusiastic one -- after all, it is endorsing the establishment candidate over a relative outsider.
MRC's Baker Misleads About Iraq War Coverage Topic: NewsBusters
An Aug. 21 NewsBusters post by Brent Baker purports to detail how "The peaceful departure of the last U.S. combat forces from Iraq this week was another milestone towards the successful end of a war that many liberal journalists declared lost four years ago." Baker adds, "Since early 2009, the war in Iraq has been a relatively low priority for the national press, which has focused on decrying the war in Afghanistan and cheerleading the Obama administration’s aggressive domestic agenda."
Baker is careful to avoid one notable question: If the war was so successful as a Republican venture, why did Fox News largely refuse to cover the withdrawal of the final combat unit from Iraq?
The Associated Press reported that while MSNBC "devoted its entire prime-time footprint to the story" on Aug. 19, Fox News "devoted just under 10 minutes to the story, much of it during Shepard Smith's 7 p.m. newscast."
As we've previously noted, MRC's studies of Iraq war news coverage largely have avoided any examination of Fox News, presumably because its war coverage isn't any better, and may actually be worse, than other news outlets.
The so-called liberal media isn't the only outlet for which war coverage became a "relatively low priority." Just don't expect Baker or the MRC to admit that.
AIM's Kincaid: Gay = Treason Topic: Accuracy in Media
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid keeps up the goofy crusade of equating homosexuality with treason with his Aug. 20 column attacking Bradley Manning, suspected of leaking classified war documents to WikiLeaks.
"In addition to being openly gay, he was a humanist and atheist," Kincaid writes, adding, "The new information adds to the case, made by Accuracy in Media, that the much-criticized “Don’t ask, Don’t tell,” homosexual exclusion policy was not being strictly enforced under the Obama Administration." Kincaid goes on:
It is truly unbelievable. Who in the Army decided to make Manning, who was openly flouting the law on homosexuality, an intelligence analyst with access to classified information? There has been no follow-up from the liberal or conservative media on this sensitive point.
See? For Kincaid, gay = treason. Perhaps instead of examining Manning's childhood for the " lack of a father figure in his life," Kincaid should examine what makes him such a hateful, bitter man.
Newsmax's Last-Minute Attacks on Rick Scott Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has already skewed its news coverage of the Republican primary for the Florida governor's race around its endorsement of Bill McCollum over Rick Scott, so it's no surprise that as election day neared, Newsmax gets in a few more licks of bias:
An Aug. 17 article highlighting an ad attacking Scott, followed by an Aug. 18 article highlighting a different anti-Scott ad.
An Aug. 18 article by Jim Meyers touting McCollum's lead over Scott in one poll.
An Aug. 20 article by Meyers headlined "Rick Scott Wants Subpoena Quashed."
An Aug. 20 interview with Dick Morris, who explained "why he thinks Bill McCollum will win not only the Republican primary against Rick Scott on Tuesday, Aug. 24, but also the general election."
An Aug. 21 article headlined "Rick Scott Took 5th Amendment 75 Times."
An Aug. 22 column by Steve Forbes headlined, "You Can't Trust Rick Scott."
Joseph Farah Is Morally Superior To You Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah returns to the WND-Ann Coulter imbroglio by asserting his moral superiority over us lowly folks and even his fellow evangelicals. Why? Because we don't hate gays as much as he does, of course.
After starting his Aug. 23 column by saying that "I don't have any intention of beating to death my personal dustup with Ann Coulter," he declares that some of the email he has received on the subject "requires further exploration." That would be how some evangelicals aren't as anti-gay as they should be:
It's true that much of the church is lacking the moral discernment it should receive from the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Much of the church is as blind to right and wrong as the world is. That's alarming.
In other words, it's not enough to call yourself a Christian. It's not enough to go to church on Sunday. It's not enough to say some magic words. You've got to be sincere in your repentance and be obedient to His will.
have no doubts that many who call themselves Christians have encouraged Ann Coulter to take this speaking assignment. I can't judge their motives. Maybe they are enamored of her celebrity. Maybe they put their friendship with Ann above giving her what they know in their hearts to be sound advice. Maybe they're afraid of being called names and cast out of impolite conservative company. Maybe they are misguided or immature or carnal Christians. Maybe they are not Christians at all.
I don't get my notion of what being a Christian is or how to be one from other Christians. I get it from the Bible.
And understand what I am saying here: I do not suggest it is wrong for Christians to associate with homosexuals, as some have charged. In fact, if we love them – or, as Ann Coulter suggests, "like" them – we should engage them. We should bring them the truth. We should share the good news of the Gospel. And that, however uncomfortable it is, means confronting them with their sin – just as we would any other sinner.
I believe that's what Jesus meant when He told us to love our enemies. The ultimate demonstration of love for a Christian should be to evangelize the lost.
Farah concludes with another shot at Coulter and his fellow evangelicals:
There is no indication Ann Coulter has ever used one of her paid speaking engagements to do this. In fact, I'm not even sure a paid speaking engagement is an appropriate forum for evangelizing.
Nevertheless, I have heard from a few Christians who compare Coulter's paid speaking gig to Homocon with Jesus sitting down with tax collectors and sinners.
That is not good discernment.
Coulter is a political activist, a pundit, a satirist. She is not Jesus. And she is not an evangelist. No one is likely to get saved at Homocon because Ann Coulter gives a conservative stump speech.
What will happen as a result of her appearance is that a compromise will be made with sin. Sin will be condoned or appeased. A conservative icon will find accommodation with a sin that would undermine the foundations of Western civilization, the Judeo-Christian ethic and the most basic biblical standards of sexual morality.
Perhaps if Farah didn't act so arrogant about his perceived moral superiority (WND's army of lies amply demonstrate that he's not), he might be a little more persuasive.
Pat Boone Calls Obama White House A 'Mosque' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Pat Boone's latest anti-Obama screed, published Aug. 21 at WorldNetDaily, begins this way:
This isn't easy to write. It's not fun to say. It's virtually unthinkable to realize and acknowledge.
While the controversy still rises and rages on, around the proposed "Cordoba House" mosque and Muslim cultural center right on the edge of Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center stood till Sept. 11, 2001 – there is a world-famous building, dedicated by its current residents to similar purposes, in the middle of Washington, D.C.
We call it the White House.
Oh, somehow we're pretty sure Boone had no problem whatsoever writing such a thing, given his factuallychallengedanimus toward the president -- after all, this is the same guy who thinks Obama is a rodent who must be fumigated out of the building.
Speaking of factually challenged, Boone spreads a few whoppers in his column, such as claiming: "One of his close friends took him on a prolonged visit to Pakistan during those years, and the question remains about Obama's passport. If it was American, he would not have been allowed in Pakistan – so what was it?" In fact, as we've detailed, Obama could have easily -- and, accepting the most likely explanation, probably did -- travel to Pakistan on a U.S. passport, since the State Department and the New York Times were advising Americans on how to do it.
Boone also claims that Obama's "support team has spent close to $2 million suppressing all that information." That's not exactly true either; as we've noted, that's the amount of money that was spent on attorneys, and there's no evidence that amount was spent only on birther lawsuits.
And then there's this statement: "On Friday the 13th, ironically, the president hosted his second Ramadan dinner at the White House. He was not the first to do so; Hillary Clinton did the same in 1996, and a Ramadan occasion has become an expected annual affair since." Um, Hillary Clinton was never president, Pat.
Boone also makes the baseless claim that "Muslims and homosexual activists have been invitees at the White House more than any Christian or Jewish representatives have." He offers no evidence to support this claim.
A Mediaite article by Michael Triplett examines the New York Times' coverage of gays and related issues, writing that while "few papers cover the LGBT community as extensively as the New York Times, but it is far from perfect"" and concluding, "And, of course, conservative critics of the paper will always contend there is a strong pro-gay bias, not matter the facts on the ground."
How right Triplett is. An Aug. 21 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham quotes from Triplett's article, including the above statement. And what is Graham's headline onhis post? ''So-called Gay Mafia' Adding Bias to the New York Times."
Why, it's as if Triplett was reading Graham's mind. Or, more likely, he was so familiar with right-wing attacks on the Times that he knew that any non-negative coverage of gays is seen by the likes of the MRC as axiomatic of bias.