WND's Unruh Uncritically Touts Anti-Gay Hate Group's Claims of 'Homofascism' Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of the more ridiculous ledes we've ever read kicks off in Bob Unruh's April 6 WorldNetDaily article:
Hunt for the word “homophobia” – purportedly a fear of homosexuality – and Merriam-Webster, the ADL, Wikipedia, Oxford Dictionary, The Free Dictionary, the Reference Dictionary and others are ready to provide help.
But look for “homofascism” – the use of homosexuality to bludgeon and batter the religious rights of Christians and others – and the logical resources are silent, leaving it to blogs and others to define.
At no point does Unruh consider that this is because homophobia is an actual thing, while "homofascism" is a term made up by homophobes for the sole purpose of denigration. But since the purpose of Unruh's article is to further the idea of "homofascism," he's not about to let such things as logic get in his way.
And ironically,Unruh as teamed up with the leader of a hate group to promote "homofascism." Scott Lively is head of Abiding Truth Ministries, which the Southern Policy Law Center has identified as a"hate group" for Lively's vicious anti-gay activism. We've documented how WND uncritically promotes his homophobia and covers up for his extreme anti-gay activism when he's caught going way over the line, as he did in allegedly inspiring a proposed law in Uganda that would permit the death penalty for mere homosexuality.
Since agenda trumps facts at WND, Unruh does more uncritical promotion of Lively's anti-gay agenda:
Rev. Scott Lively, who works with Defend the Family, now also has begun working with pastors and churches in Oklahoma City, under the banner of Oklahomans for the 1st Amendment, to take back Christians’ rights to believe, live and express their biblical beliefs.
Essentially, the goal of the program is to affirm that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion trumps laws set up to promote homosexuality by setting aside quotas for hiring and such.
Lively told WND the effort was launched in Oklahoma for a number of reasons, including that the state is fairly conservative and the special “rights” for homosexuals still are a mostly new idea there.
“The idea is to accomplish somewhere in the nation an amendment of sexual orientation regulations … as an example to the rest of the nation,” he said.
The idea, with variations, could be applied to governments, corporations, or anything else.
He said such “gay” set-asides are sold to the public as a shield against attacks on homosexuals, but the homosexuals use the special provisions as a sword to attack the rights of Christians.
Neither Lively nor Unruh identify any of these alleged "set-asides" for gays. Instead, Unruh regurgitates a laundry list of"incidents that show abuse of Christians’ rights."
Being the lazy, biased reporter he is, Unruh can't be bothered to obtain any response from any pro-gay group regarding Lively. Does Unruh think talking to people who might be gay is too icky for him?
MRC's Bozell Changes Gender of Melissa Harris-Perry's Child To Fit His Attack on MSNBC Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell has a fit about a new MSNBC promo by Melissa Harris-Perry:
Melissa Harris-Perry declaring in an ad that we must “break through” the “private notion” that “your kid is yours” because “kids belong to whole communities” is an outrage. This isn’t what Mediaite called “a collection of tired progressive cliches on steroids.” This is shredding the notion of family, replacing it with the commands of the state.
MSNBC has awarded itself a new acronym: My Son Needs to Belong to the Collective. How do you sell a private network with this dreadful collectivist advertising?
But as Bozell's own "news" outlet, CNSNews.com, has reported, Harris-Perry has a daughter, not a son. Changing the gender of Harris-Perry's child in order to insult her seems par for the course for Bozell.
On top of that, Bozell's quoting on snippets of Harris-Perry's words and not providing what Harris-Perry actually said in full context. That's another clear sign that he's twisting her words.
Here's what she actually said:
We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had kind of a private notion of children -- your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We have't a very collective notion of "these are our children." So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.
In other words, Harris-Perry is arguing that Americans treat children as part of a community through investment in public education, and that the idea of people like Bozell that public education is a waste and children are the property of parents instead of a member of society is harmful to children. Harris-Perry did not "shred the notion of family" in favor of "the commands of the state."
Wait, weren't Bozell's employees complaining just the other day that the "liberal media" was focusing only on controversial comments while ignoring the overall point of what was being said? Yes, they were.
WND's Klein Confirms What Others Confirmed A Long Time Ago About Obama, Ayers Topic: WorldNetDaily
Under the headline "Ayers confirms what Obama has denied," Aaron Klein writes in an April 7 WorldNetDaily article:
Weatherman domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is now confirming what the White House has previously denied – that he held a fundraiser in his living room for Barack Obama.
That 1995 meeting was said to have launched Obama’s political career.
Sadly for Klein, none of this is the massive scoop he portrays it as.
First, at no point does Klein quote Obama denying that he was the subject of a fundraiser at Ayers' house -- all he offers is a 2008 clip of Obama campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs denying it was a fundraiser.
Second, this is not the first time Ayers has alluded to an event for Obama at his house. In November 2011, conservative blogs wereallover a similar statement by Ayers. Klein must have missed that if he thinks the latest statement was the first time Ayers addressed it, which would seem to make him a lousy reporter.
Third, Klein seems to have forgotten that this has been talked about for more than five years. Politico reported in February 2008:
“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”
Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.
Klein actually cites Young's statements in his article -- without crediting Politico, of course and removing any reference to the date the accusation was made -- but he offers no evidence that Obama ever denied this account. (Politico states that the Obama campaign did not respond to a request for a comment.)
Given the fact that nobody had denied this account at the time, it's more than a little disingenous for Klein to suggest that it has been consistently denied for the past five years.
Further, as Politico's Ben Smith pointed out in 2011, the event at Ayers' house was technically more of an introduction of Obama as a candidate than an explicit fundraiser. It's a bit of a thin distinction, sure, but Klein simply paints Gibbs' denial as a blanket falsehood rather than the threading of the needle it arguably was.
In summary: Klein is trying to create news where there is none by faulty, biased reporting. Anyone surprised?
MRC Bashes Fearmongering About Vaccines, Ignores Its Own Topic: Media Research Center
Julia Seymour writes in an April 3 MRC Business & Media Institute item:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found further evidence that childhood vaccines and autism are “not related,” in spite of high profile anti-vaccination voices like actress Jenny McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The mainstream media had helped spread fears of vaccination several years ago. In 2005, Kennedy’s scary claims about vaccines were reported on ABC, CBS, in Time magazine and in other media outlets as well. It took until 2008, for some media outlets to do an about face on the issue.
Seymour, of course, makes no mention of anti-vaccine fearmongering in conservative media, where WorldNetDaily serves as a leader.
Further, Seymour makes no mention of the MRC's own anti-vaccine fearmongering, particularly on the subject of anti-HPV vaccines like Gardasil that help prevent cervical cancer.
In a 2007 MRC Culture & Media Institute item, Kristen Fyfe declared that she would not allow her teenage daughter to get the vaccine because HPV "is not passed through casual contact, like measles, mumps, chicken pox or any of the other diseases for which mandatory vaccination makes sense. No matter how germ-infested my child's classroom is, one germ she won't catch there is HPV."
A 2008 CMI article complained that the media was "ignoring reports that some women have suffered convulsions, paralysis and death after being vaccinated" with Gardasil, citing fellow fearmongers WorldNetDaily as evidence. For all its fearmonger, the article provided no evidence that the rate of serious side effects of Gardasil is any worse than any other vaccine; instead, the fearmongering continued, declaring that "The media continue to keep quiet about the side effects associated with the drug even when young girls' health and lives are at stake."
A 2009 CMI article declared that a media report on Gardasil filed to menion that "the only reason to administer the vaccine is the assumption that girls will be sexually active. It is an assumption that they are incapable of abstinence. In fact, nobody in the segment mentioned that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to avoid HPV."
A 2010 CMI article declared Gardasil to be "an unnecessary risk," huffing, "What's truly a failure is calling Gardasil a cervical cancer vaccine and not reporting all the side effects." It also referenced claims about side effects by the National Vaccine Information Center, failing to mention that the NVIC has an anti-vaccine agenda.
Apparently, it's OK to fearmonger against vaccines at the MRC when a moral case can be devised.
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily
Richard Bartholomew deconstructs self-proclaimed prophet Joel Richardson's claim, as published in an April 3 WorldNetDaily article, that an apparent "gate to hell" was discovered by archelologists in Turkey. In short, Bartholomew says that Richardson "shows a basic misunderstanding of the nature of scholarship," conflates two separate cities, and apparently thinks Magog and Mabog are the same.
In the original article below, the unbylined CNS article claimed that the BBC first tweeted news of Margaret Thatcher's death at "4:49," meaning that as of the article's posting at approximately 10 a.m. ET, the White House had been silent for five hours about Thatcher's death.
But that's false. The first BBC tweet on Thatcher's death was actually sent at 7:49 ET, three hours after CNS first claimed it did:
CNS later changed the time of the BBC tweet to "around 6:50" then, finally, to eliminationg the reference to the BBC tweet entirely and stating that news of Thatcher's death "broke here around 7:50." CNS did not tell its readers that this had been corrected not once but twice, nor did it explain why it changed the time from an exact number to one that was "around."
Not only is this petty gotcha journalism, it's dishonest journalism. But then, CNS is a political organization, not a journalistic one.
WND Blames Obama For Suicides, Stress Topic: WorldNetDaily
Is there anything WorldNetDaily won't try to pin on President Obama? It seems not. Judging by the promotion for the latest issue of WND's Whistleblower magazine, it appears that people feeling stressed is Obama's fault as well:
“I think Obama is challenging everybody’s sanity,” Rush Limbaugh exclaimed recently. “Obama [is] literally pushing people to snap, attacking the very sanity of the country!”
Rush may be on to something – because a little-reported but crucial aspect of America’s ongoing “fundamental transformation” is that the sheer stress of life is driving tens of millions to illness, depression and self-destruction. It’s all documented in the groundbreaking April issue of Whistleblower, titled “STRESSED AND DEPRESSED: The unreported health crisis of the Obama era.”
One of the "stunning trends" WND apparently wants to pin on Obama: "More U.S. soldiers died last year by suicide than in combat, and suicide has surpassed car crashes as the leading cause of injury death in America." Apparently, lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- neither of which was started by Obama -- has nothing to do with that statistic.
WND will also apparently use the magazine to rehash its baseless fearmongering about antidepressants. There are two articles by WND managing editor David Kupelian, one of which, titled "Doctors, drugs and demons," is sure to once again blame Andrea Yates' killing of her five children on antidepressant use and will most certainly not mention that she was in thrall to a fundamentalist street preacher who not only did nothing to help her but may have actually made her condition worse.
MRC Isn't A Copy-Editing Watchdog Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center loves to bill itself as "America's Media Watchdog." (If you define Fox News and conservative blogs as a media outlet that don't need watchdogging, then sure.)
The MRC does not bill itself as "America's Copy-Editing Watchdog." And for good reason. Spot the error in the wallpaper image on the MRC's Twitter page:
That's right -- "Media" is misspelled in the white box on the left.
It seems that the MRC is so enraptured by its self-propaganda that little things like checking to see if "America's Media Watchdog" is spelled correctly just go right past them.
But then, when you consider that the MRC's mission really isn't watchdogging but serving as an outlet for right-wing propaganda -- added to the fact that there are precious few MRC employees with actual journalism experience -- it's no wonder that something as essential as spell-checking is not a priority. Even in prominently placed copy, like Twitter wallpaper.
We have reached the point where neither American laws nor accepted cultural norms will protect my rights as a Christian to protect my child from what my faith teaches is sinful and perverse behavior. Americans must not back down in the face of constant intimidation. The first step begins at home: naming the sin and teaching our children to love the sinner but hate the sin. The LGBT agenda is ensuring that our tiny tots are taught homosexuality before we’ve even broken them of thumb-sucking. By the time they are teenagers – feeling “different” like millions of teenagers before them – they are being sucked into the LGBTQ lifestyle because their parents and their communities put acceptance of man’s lusts above God’s law.
Our youth are embarking on a lonely, dark path of sexual confusion and its resulting sadness, disease and suicide. There will be no going back. Generation Q may have already slipped through our fingers.
The quest for “same-sex marriage” (which, as has been established, doesn’t exist) is not about the civil rights of homosexuals or the well-worn catch phrase “marriage equality.” Like everything championed by the political left, it is about weakening America’s cultural and societal foundation; it is but one component in the anti-theistic, Christophobic design of the radical left.
In fact, outside of a handful of the whopping 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as homosexual, most of those who are advancing this offensive are not homosexual, nor do they care in the least about the civil rights of homosexuals. They are the power brokers of the left, the same people who continually strive to alienate ethnic minorities, women, the poor and whomever else they can from societal convention.
Apart from those types, the people who advocate most vociferously for “marriage equality” are militant homosexuals and the most rabid leftists. The majority of those with whom I interact on a frequent basis are young and ill-informed, but they all share the same venomous hatred for everything smacking of Christianity, employing the same tiresome charges relative to those holding traditional values being intolerant and hateful.
In light of the Supreme Court hand-picking the issue of homosexual marriage this week – an issue that has been settled by our Creator, the laws of our republic and the righteous compliance of the American people – I thought it was important to ask where the American people are deriving the belief that radical homosexual marriage is accepted by a majority of our citizens.
Fact: At least 33 states have voted down homosexual marriage.
During the state’s Proposition 8 battle, 7 million Californians voted against homosexual marriage (the majority were black voters.) Not once but twice was their voice heard. Yet, the corrupt judicial system got involved and stripped it from the hands of the people, placing it in the courts – right where they wanted it. That way they could control the “debate,” and the state-run media were right there to help them along.
That our nation has fallen so far, so fast in its embrace of empty relativism makes the head swim. It’s at once perplexing and heartbreaking that we have a U.S. Supreme Court seriously considering inventing a newfangled “right” to that chicane aberration tagged “same-sex marriage.” This is true particularly when one considers that the defining behaviors central to “gay marriage” were, for hundreds of years and for obvious reasons, legally and properly classified as “crimes against nature.” Though our postmodern zeitgeist may have changed, objective reality has not.
Indeed, American culture, while casting aside that which is just, moral and true, has, instead, taken-up that which is unjust, immoral and false. This abject rejection of absolute truth provides compelling evidence that the good ‘ol USA – the greatest nation on earth – is on the fast track to becoming “the late, great USA.”
So-called “gay marriage” is a counterfeit – a mockery of legitimate marriage. It’s like taking a rotten apple, spray-painting it orange, and then calling it an orange. “Same-sex marriage” is no more real marriage then a rotten apple is an orange. It’s mock marriage.
Will Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts disappoint conservatives again – this time on same-sex marriage?
The question is being raised by an opinion piece written by Roberts’ cousin, Jean Podrasky, 48, a lesbian activist. The piece appeared on the website of the National Council of Lesbian Rights. She will be sitting ringside in the courtroom as a guest of Roberts at two key hearings take place.
Roberts shocked Republicans and conservatives when he sided with the majority of flaming progressives on the court in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare.
Could he do it again?
Will he pull a Rob Portman and support same-sex marriage because he’s got a homosexual relative?
Our Supreme Court is faced right now with its greatest challenge, ever. By June, concerning the very definition of marriage, nine human beings will decide whether we remain “one nation under God,” governed by the God who created us and them – or take on a new fuel, the treacherous, fickle, amoral “popular opinion,” a synthetic mixture of poll results, ignorance of unchangeable biblical principle and outright hedonistic rebellion.
And as true now as then, our concepts of morality and virtue come directly from God, through His Bible. That’s undeniable. His love is universal, for all of us. But His blessings are promised only to those who honor and obey His Word. When a society decides to substitute its collective will for His, it changes its spiritual and moral DNA – like pumping pig’s blood into human veins.
People, we must pray, and pray very earnestly, for the nine human beings who will soon decide the future of America. Only if we remain “one nation under God” will we long survive.
Anyone – conservative, leftist, atheist, pagan or statesman – who conflates racial discrimination in marriage, education, or employment with gender or sex is ignorant of both history and constitutional law. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Abolitionist movement, the Civil War, the Civil War Amendments, Reconstruction, nor Jim Crow, the 1964 Civil Rights Acts or affirmative action had anything to do with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender movement.
Being black isn’t a sin; being LGBT is a sin and violates many Bible precepts and the original intent of the framers. Perhaps Fox News host Bill O’Reilly would call me a “Bible thumper,” which I consider a vile, reactionary stereotype, yet O’Reilly must learn that all discrimination isn’t invidious or unlawful. Some discrimination is required to keep society from imploding.
Black Americans are collectively the beneficiaries of the blood, suffering and death MLK and the civil rights movement bore to fulfill Jefferson’s Declaration, yet over the past 40 years Black America has squandered this sacred inheritance because we allowed LGBT activists and other disparate groups to pervert the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment due process clause by glomming onto the black civil rights moral crusades of the 1950s and ’60s, which historically were rooted in God, biblical theism, Natural Law and constitutional liberty. This treachery is especially outrageous on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination.
CNS' Cover Pretends Oil Industry Talking Points Are 'News' Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center is rather cozily in bed with the energy industry -- it has received more than $400,000 from ExxonMobil, and MRC vice president Dan Gainor holds the title of T. Boone Pickens Fellow.
One thing that fossil-fuel money presumably buys from the MRC is articles like this April 5 CNSNews.com piece by Matt Cover, in which he uncritically spouts the oil industry's stance on a new federal regulation to lower sulfur pollutants in gasoline:
New regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency aimed at eliminating sulfur emissions from cars and light trucks would have little benefit for the environment and could raise gas prices, according to a study produced for the American Petroleum Institute (API).
“Simply put, as proposed, the Tier 3 regulation will impose significant costs on making gasoline. And a study we commissioned by the environmental consulting group Environ concludes that ozone benefits touted by EPA would be only marginal at best,” API Group Director for Downstream and Industry Operations Bob Greco said on a conference call Thursday.
Since Cover is acting as an industry shill, not an actual reporter, he made no effort to seek anyone out for reaction to the API's stance.
Meanwhile, this may be the last CNS article we see from Cover. He's moving on to join Rare, the new right-wing website operated by Cox Media that launches on April 15. If the Rare folks are looking for someone to turnright-wing talking points into "news," they couldn't have picked a finer go-to guy than Cover.
WND Forgets It Promoted Idea That Obama Is The Antichrist Topic: WorldNetDaily
An April 3 WorldNetDaily article suggested it was kind of silly to think that President Obama is the Antichrist:
The good news for the White House is that three of four respondents to a Public Policy Polling survey say they do not believe that Barack Obama is the Antichrist, the epitome of evil that the Bible explains will come to deceive people during the End Times.
But on the other hand, 13 percent are convinced he is, and another 13 percent – for a total of one in four across the nation – say they aren’t sure.
It was question No. 8 on the organization’s national survey. Other questions asked whether people believed in global warming, whether Osama bin Laden was alive and whether a UFO crashed at Roswell, N.M., in 1947 and the U.S. government covered it up.
According to the London Guardian, the survey asked about a number of conspiracy theories, which the report described as “insane.”
WND fails to mention that it's one of the leading promoters of the idea that Obama is the Antichrist:
An August 2008 column by Hal Lindsey stated that the Antichrist "won't be Barack Obama, but Obama's world tour provided a foretaste of the reception he can expect to receive. He will probably also stand in some European capital, addressing the people of the world and telling them that he is the one that they have been waiting for. And he can expect as wildly enthusiastic a greeting as Obama got in Berlin."
In 2009, WND promoted a YouTube video by the then-anonymous "PP Simmons" -- since revealed as WND author Carl Gallups -- that promoted a false interpretation of the Bible to claim that a couple random words from the Book of Isaiah can be translated to mean "I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah."
Self-proclaimed prophet Joel Richardson used a WND column to disingenuously declare that "I want to make it very clear that in no way do I believe that President Obama is the Antichrist" -- then outlined all the ways that Obama is like the Antichrist.
WND curiously failed to acknowledge these very direct assertions of a link between Obama and the Antichrist, even as it tried to distance itself a little from it. The article even includes a plug for Richardson's book claming that the Antichrist will be a Muslim.
MRC's Hadro Hypocritically Complains About Coverage Of Michael Reagan's Controversial Statement Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center news analyst Matt Hadro -- best known as the MRC's documentarian of how CNN repeatedly fails to denigrate gays -- sure hates it when controversial statements by conservatives are covered. He whines in an April 4 NewsBusters post:
CNN's Piers Morgan put Michael Reagan through the wringer on Wednesday over a small portion of his op-ed on churches and same-sex marriage. Morgan barely discussed the overall point of the article, focusing instead on "very controversial comments" near the end of the op-ed.
Within his call for churches to openly oppose same-sex marriage, Reagan had noted a "slippery slope" that would occur if same-sex marriage is legalized, possibly leading to legalization of "bestiality, and perhaps even murder." Morgan found this "at worst really very bigoted and offensive" and attacked Reagan for comparing gay marriage to bestiality and murder, even though Reagan was not comparing the two, but rather was arguing that legalization of one could lead to legalization of the other.
That seems like a distinction without a difference, a desperate attempt to defend an absurd slippery-slope argument. There is no logical progression from same-sex marriage to murder, and surely Hadro knows it.
Also, notice Hadro's complaint that Morgan focused only on the "very controversial" statement Reagan made. He whines about that again in another April 4 post that "CNN didn't show as much respect for Reagan's conservative son Michael who had penned an op-ed calling on churches to stand up for traditional marriage. Anchor Brooke Baldwin focused only on the most controversial part of his article."
But isn't focusing on controversial statements and ignoring their context pretty much the MRC's modus operandi? Yes, it is. Isn't it hypocritical for Hadro to complains about context supposedly being ignored? Yes, it is.
Just to name one example of focusing only on a controversial statement to the exclusion of everything else, the MRC loves to portray two sentences of a profile of Ted Kennedy that referenced Mary Jo Kopechne and stated that "Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age" as being laudatory of Kennedy when the author himself said it was a criticism.
So, yeah, Hadro is complaining about what he and his employer do all the time.
A child of the ’80s, I grew up watching any and every action cartoon I could, from “He-Man” to “Transformers” to, of course, “G.I. Joe.”
And thanks to the public service announcements at the end of every “G.I. Joe” episode, I learned to test a door before opening it if my house is on fire, not to pet strange dogs and never to play around downed power lines.
As the Joes explained every episode, “Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.”
The makers of the original cartoons had hoped kids would walk away from “G.I. Joe” having learned something – and if we’re smart, we should learn something from the new Joe film in theaters, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”: namely, that the quickest path to subjugation is to strip the good guys of their guns.
Part of the film’s plot is a plan by the villains to eliminate all the world’s nuclear weapons. While many folks would consider this a noble, rather than villainous, enterprise – in fact, total nuclear disarmament is a common goal among leftists – “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” reveals the villains of “Cobra” still have a weapon of mass destruction up their sleeve. When all the world’s governments are nuke-free, there will be no deterrent left to stop Cobra from demanding the world submit or die at the hands of their vastly superior weaponry.
The analogy, though missed by many in Hollywood, D.C. and the media, is abundantly clear to those of us in the real world: If you take guns away from the good guys, the bad guys will still have them. And without anyone armed enough to stop them, villains can force the masses to – again – submit or die.
Particularly in the U.S., where there are hundreds of thousands of guns in circulation and a border porous enough to allow many more in, restricting responsible American citizens (i.e., “the good guys”) to merely token gun ownership, while drug lords, burglars, rapists, mass murderers and terrorists (i.e., “the bad guys”) are freely armed to the teeth is not so very different from the dilemma the world faces in “Retaliation” when its nukes are gone and Cobra still has the ability to destroy nations.
Granted, we might all love a utopian world where there are no nukes, no wars, no guns. But until Christ returns and makes the impossible possible, the “bad guys” will have their guns, so the “good guys” need them too.
The writers of the 2nd Amendment knew this just as well as the average “Joe.” And now you know. And knowing is half the battle.
Zahn also notes that "The film’s sexuality includes a shirtless man." We weren't aware that any shirtless male is, by definition, "sexual."
Another Day, Another Cliff Kincaid Anti-Gay Freakout Topic: Accuracy in Media
Time magazine's dual cover photos of homosexual couples kissing has sent Cliff Kincaid, Accuarcy in Media's resident homophobe, off on yet another anti-gay rant:
Offending the moral sensibilities of millions of Americans, Time Magazine is featuring cover stories showing two white homosexual couples kissing. The Right Scoop blog ran a “censored version of the offensive covers.”
John Aravosis, the homosexual activist who runs Americablog.com, said this is part of a propaganda campaign to normalize homosexuality. He said, “The kiss has been quite a powerful political weapon in the gay arsenal for a while now. And checking our archives, it’s rather amazing how important the ‘gay kiss’ has been to our political struggle over the years.”
The purpose is to desensitize people to homosexuality and increase acceptance of the lifestyle.
Wwe're not sure why Kincaid felt the need to inform us of the race of the cover couples. Then again, this is a guy who thinks white supremacist Jared Taylor is a suitable person to quote on racial issues.
There's more, if you want to read Kincaid descending into his usual conspiracy mode, complete with mentions of the "Gay Mafia" and whining that Fox News' Bill O'Reilly dismissed opponents of gay marriage as "Bible-thumpers."
WND Promotes Discredited Claim That Fast & Furious Was 'False Flag' Operation Topic: WorldNetDaily
Taylor Rose writes in an April 3 WorldNetDaily article:
The U.S. government running guns to Mexican cartels is “comparable to the United States funding al-Qaida to make someone in the United States look bad,” according to the author of a new best-seller.
Katie Pavlich is the author of “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up,” news editor of Townhall.com and an expert on the Fast and Furious scandal.
In an interview with WND, she asserted that the Obama administration intentionally orchestrated a “false flag” against lawful gun dealers, the U.S. Border Patrol and Mexican citizens to give cause for more gun regulation.
“This is a situation where the government was creating a situation where they could blame law-abiding citizens, turn them into criminals and creat[e] this false problem that they could solve through gun regulation,” Pavlich said.
When asked by WND if the real agenda was to make American gun dealers look bad, Pavlich said, “absolutely.”
She said Obama, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder “were giving us this false 90 percent figure” that 90 percent of guns being illegally trafficked to Mexico were coming from Arizona and the Southwest border.
Pavlich asserts that the administration’s agenda is mirrored in a 1995 video of Holder that shows him advocating “brainwashing” children to think differently about guns.
Just one little problem: Pavlich's conspiracy theory has been utterly discredited. As Media Matters points out, Pavlich has cited no actual evidence to back up her claim, only circumstantial claims.
Further, no less than House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, who's in charge of the House investigation of the operation, noted in his June 2011 report on Fast and Furious that the goal of the operation was to "build a large, complex conspiracy case" against members of gun trafficking networks supplying Mexican drug cartels.
The fact that there's no evidence to back it up, however, isn't going to stand in Rose's way:
Pavlich is not the only commentator to assert that Fast and Furious was an attempt to curb the Second Amendment. NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre said in 2011 that “Fast and Furious” was a “plot to undermine” the right to bear arms.
Former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in a 2011 interview with radio talk show host Alex Jones, said the government is criminally liable for Fast and Furious and described the operation as a “false flag.”
Rose apparently thinks LaPierre and Alex Jones are credible sources. Rose demonstrates no evidence of having bothered to examine the veracity of the conspiracy claim.