Apparently, "There were no WMDs in Iraq" is the left's Iraq War equivalent of their false "settled science" on human-caused global warming. Of course, climate science isn't settled at all, given that there hasn't been any warming in almost 19 years.
What is settled is that there really were WMDs in Iraq. The left's, Democrats' and others' claims that there were none — zero, zip, nada — is what is self-evidently false.
Wikileaks documents, purloined by Bradley/Chelsea Manning, considered a folk hero by many, show that there WMDs in Iraq.
Blumer cites as evidence of this a Wired report noting that the WikiLeaks findings show that "Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained" and that no "evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq."
Blumer also cites the existence of uranium yellowcake in Iraq as evidence of WMDs.
Blumer huffs that the Wired writer "tries to minimize the impact by overstating the Bush administration’s actual position." But Blumer is also overstating the opposite position. Nobody is claiming that "zero, zip, nada" chemical or nuclear weapons were found in Iraq. The standard as articulated by the Bush administration prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was amassing WMDs that posed an "imminent" threat to the U.S.
Degraded, decaying 20-year-old chemical weapons aren't WMDs as defined by the Bush administration. Non-enriched, natural uranium that Iraq had no capability to enrich aren't WMDs either.
Nevertheless, Blumer concludes: "There were WMDs at the time of the Iraq invasion, and it's not arguable." Actually, it is -- just don't expect Blumer to admit it.
In his Sept. 21 column, Farah asserted that "Obama exaggerated the offenses of the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, led a fight to bomb it, sent arms and funding to Sunni Muslim rebels and then watched as those arms fell into the hands of ISIS – literally launching these demons into a regional threat," adding that "a bulwark against radical Sunni domination in the Middle East and a surprisingly good protector of minority religious groups like Christians and Druze." Farah also claimed that "we need to recognize Syria and Assad are on the front lines of fighting ISIS."
A day later, Farah claimed that "the people Assad was battling in his own country were ruthless killers, thugs and terrorists. In fact, it was ISIS."
Actually, the opposite is true -- Assad is not only not fighting ISIS, he effectively created the group.
Newsweek reports that the Assad regime released many terrorists from its prisons in 2011 at the start of the Syrian civil war, presumably to create a pretense to crack down on dissent. NBC agrees, adding that Assad had released terrorists from his prisons during the Iraq War as a bulwark to prevent U.S. troops in Iraq from advancing into Syria.
Although sworn enemies on paper, ISIS has largely refrained from fighting the Syrian regime to focus on building an Islamic state in northern Syria and ousting more moderate rebel rivals. In return, the regime has left ISIS alone, allowing the Syrian military to concentrate on fighting the moderate rebel groups. At the same time, Assad also points to the brutal exploits of ISIS and other jihadist groups in the conflict to justify its argument to the international community that it is fighting Islamic “terrorists.”
NBC also points out that Assad has no interest in fighting ISIS because they have performed their expected duty:
The Islamists grew, and for Assad, were increasingly convenient. He could point to the radicals — and parade them on Syrian television — as evidence that the opposition was nothing more than a band of dangerous zealots. Syrian state television never talked about the rebels asking for democracy. It described the government’s war on terrorism. The regime even gave the Islamists a boost.
Assad’s forces bombed the secular Free Syrian Army, killing thousands of civilians in the process, but rarely targeted the Islamists. It allowed the militants — later known as ISIS — to have a safe haven.
But ISIS has grown beyond Assad's control, and unfortunately, according to analysts, U.S. bombing strikes against ISIS ultimately serve to benefit Assad's regime.
CNS' Hollingsworth Provides An Uncritical Platform For Factually Challenged Climate Denier Topic: CNSNews.com
Aswe'vedocumented, CNSNews.com's Barbara Hollingsworth is way into serving as a stenographer for right-wing causes but not so much into fact-checking or talking to more than one source for a story. She performs her stenography services once again in a Sept. 24 CNS article:
According to the datasets used last year, October 1st will mark the 18th year of “no significant warming trend in surface average temperature," says Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. And even if the current 18-year trend were to end, it would still take nearly 25 years for average global temperature figures to reflect the change, said Michaels, who has a Ph.D. in ecological climatology and spent three decades as a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
Sooner or later, even Al Gore and the numerous scientists, academics and politicians who agree with him that “Earth has a fever” will have to admit that their climate models predicting catastrophic global warming were off by a long shot, said Michaels, who was also a contributing editor to the United Nations’ second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
“It has to be admitted eventually that too much warming was forecast too fast. That just has to happen. You can’t go on and on and on,” he told CNSNews.com.
“If the surface temperature resumed the warming rate that we observed from, say 1977 through 1998, we would still go close to a quarter of a century without significant net warming because there’s such a long flat period built into the record now. “
Hollingsworth, of course, can't be bothered to seek anyone out who might counter Michaels' assertions, even though he has a history of getting things wrong. But because they are apparently of one mind in being climate change deniers, Hollingsworth gives Michaels the benefit of the doubt and treats his claims as undisputed fact.
Indeed, Michaels' central claim, that there has been no global warming for 18 years, is misleading. As we've documented, Michael's claim relies on cherry-picked data and choosing an arbitrary starting point; meanwhile, the long-term trend demonstrates continued global warming.
Hollingsworth also gullibly swallows Michaels' assertion of Arctic ice: “And if you take a close look at the Arctic data, it appears the decline stopped somewhere around 2005/2006, which means we’ve almost had ten years without any net loss in Arctic ice." In fact, Arctic ice remains near record lows.
Hollingsworth has a history of mindlessly repeating the claims of climate deniers.
Garth Kant gushes over Sarah Palin in a Sept. 26 WorldNetDaily article:
Sarah Palin brought down the house without saying a word.
The former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate came to the Values Voters Summit in Washington Friday to deliver a speech, but she may have spoken volumes with a simple, silent gesture.
Offering the gesture to the commander in chief on behalf of all Americans who support the military, Palin suddenly stopped speaking and raised a Styrofoam cup in a mock salute.
It was a satirical critique of President Obama’s Sept. 23 salute to Marines with a Styrofoam cup in his hand. The moment was captured in a photo that prompted criticism from many who found the informality beneath the commander in chief.
Not only did Kant fail to mention that Republican presidents have also saluted the troops with things in their hands, he hid a major Palin gaffe from his readers: In the same speech, she referred to the White House as being located at "1400 Pennsylvania Avenue" when, as everyone knows, it's at 1600 Pennsylvana Ave.
But then, Kant writes for WND, a "news" outlet that's not terribly interested in reporting the truth.
The Rehab Continues: Newsmax Publishes Dick Morris' New Book Topic: Newsmax
Since his spectacular punditry flameout during the 2012 presidential election, Newsmax has been giving Dick Morris the space to rehabilitate his image. Now Newsmax has arrived at the next step in the rehab process: the book.
A Sept. 24 Newsmax article by Jim Meyers is in full promotion mode:
What is Obama's real end game?
Now, for the first time, noted political strategist Dick Morris reveals Obama's secret strategy in his powerful new book "Power Grab: Obama's Dangerous Plan for a One-Party Nation."
In "Power Grab," Morris warns that America is at a crossroads — we can choose the path of the Founding Fathers and keep a strong constitutional government that thrives on our bipartisan spirit, or opt for President Barack Obama’s dream: a nation ruled by one political party with a far-left agenda.
Morris writes that almost all of Obama's key initiatives and agenda items have one common theme: They seek to turn America into a banana republic ruled by one party, by putting the Republican Party out of business — effectively ending America's long bipartisan system of government.
That's the dire warning from best-selling author and political insider Dick Morris and his co-author, Eileen McGann, in their compelling new book that is gaining national attention.
The authors make a convincing case that Obama has an overarching strategy in pushing his liberal agenda — one that grabs power from our traditional and bipartisan institutions in favor of a single party: his Democratic Party.
Meyers left a lot of things out of his article -- for instance, Morris' horrible history political prognostication and the fact that McGann is not just Morris' co-author, she's his wife. The biggest omission, however, is the fact that his employer is publishing Morris' book.
The Amazon page for Morris' book indicates that it's being published by Humanix Books. As we've documented, Humanix is Newsmax's book division.
Newsmax also gave Morris a Sept. 27 column to promote his book, in which he declares it to be "my new bestseller." That claim is hubristic at best and delusional at worst -- the book had been released only four days before Morris' column appeared, and as of this writing Amazon ranked the book at No. 146, which doesn't exactly scream bestseller status as of this point.
So the choice Obama faces is between the potential loss of Democratic control of the Senate or the loss of his last remaining shred of credibility. Poor thing!
All this president ever wanted was “hope and change.” He “hoped” that he could sit cross-legged around a solar-powered heat source, sing “Kumbaya” with world leaders and they would all be friends. Then, with the money saved from his defense budget, he could “change” our economy from one based on work and reward to one where the government provides every need. Life really is unfair!
The dumbing down of America has been on the runaway fast-track for more than 50 years and counting, just in time to brainwash unsuspecting sheep into voting for an America-hating Muslim community organizer dedicated to the fundamental transformation of the greatest nation on earth into some “social justice” hellhole.
The White House is surrounded by security details. There are cameras everywhere. Agents are locked and loaded, determined to prevent any existential threats to the first family and others. The nation is on heightened awareness of potential terrorist threats.
Yet, Omar J. Gonzales, 42, of Copperas Cove, Texas, made it all the way to the White House entrance unscathed.
What does this tell you?
It should tell you no one in America is safe as long as Obama is on watch.
Unfortunately, in this world of politically correct freakzoids, the inexplicable self-inflicted curse of denial has festered the big lie of so-called animal rights, and these dishonest zealots remain maniacal in their clamor to ban hunting, fishing and trapping.
These are basically the same lying scammers that allowed the Chicago community organizer to weasel his way to the presidency, nearly neuter America's defense system, increase the national debt like a crack whore in an opium mall, abandon security 101 in Benghazi and elsewhere, ignore a gunrunning attorney general, allow an IRS to operate like a third-world gang, unleash U.S. Fish & Wildlife agents to raid Gibson guitars and get away with it, cause America to lose all respect around the world with a foreign policy straight out of the Ann Arbor Hash Bash and cause myriad embarrassments by a government completely out of control.
Possibly the surest sign that America is in decline is that the country twice elected Barack Hussein Obama to be its commander in chief. The chump hasn’t the know-how to be a crossing guard, but we gave him the same two terms we once gave George Washington and Ronald Reagan. As I said just prior to the 2012 election, I thought America could probably survive eight years of Obama, but I wasn’t so sure it could survive an electorate that would grant him a second term.
MRC Intern Denounces Opera She's Likely Never Seen Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center intern Tianna DiMartino devotes a Sept. 22 item to ranting about Metropolitan Opera's upcomingh production of the John Adams opera "The Death of Klinghoffer," which she denounces as "disgusting, vulgar, and anti-Semitic." DiMartino sneers at the composer's defense of his opera:
Adams argued that he didn’t write The Death of Klinghoffer to be controversial or provocative and was “appalled at how hot some of the response was” to the opera. He felt he was trying to show the humanity in the civilians and Jewish family on board as well as the terrorists and wasn’t picking sides.
“For all the brutality and moral wrong they,” the terrorists, “perpetrated in killing this man they’re still human beings and have to have had reasons for doing so,” Adams claimed. Seriously? What next? An opera about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and an effort to humanize those terrorists? A tacit justification of their motives?
DiMartino offers no evidence that she has ever seen the opera (or any opera, really) or examined its libretto beyond cherry-picking the most controversial segments out of context by regurgitating the claims of her fellow critics.
As such, DiMartino's attack on Adams botches the truth by ignoring the fact that he didn't write the libretto; Adams wrote music to Alice Goodman's libretto.
In fact, "The Death of Klinghoffer" is a much more emotionally complex production that DiMartino would have you think. Writer Robert Fink examined the issue of whether the opera was anti-Semitic in a 2005 monograph in the Cambridge Opera Journal. He states:
In summary: to call The Death of Klinghoﬀer anti-Semitic is to claim that it offends because it is an ideologically driven distortion of American Jewish identity, a caricature, ‘agit-prop’, as Rothstein would have it. But looking closely at the opera (and the controversial Rumor scene) in historical context, it becomes clear that theportrayal of American Jews was offensive and upsetting to New York Jewish audiences because it reﬂected perfectly their worst nightmares about their own conﬂicted identity as Jews back to them. Beset by Jewish-Gentile hyper-assimilation, the collapse of American–Israeli Jewish dialogue, and the incineration of Black–Jewish multicultural solidarity, American secular Judaism simply did not function anymore. With Klinghoﬀer, we are dealing not with an anti-Semitic caricature from outside, but a devastatingly accurate insider’s reﬂection of what Irving Howe sensed in 1989 as anunprecedented ‘deepening crisis in Jewish identity’. Two difﬁcult years later, watching Klinghoﬀer laid the crisis bare for its New York audience; it was, evidently, akin to standing culturally naked in front of an unﬂattering music-dramatic mirror.
American Jews did not like what they saw.
Fink added: "This opera does not romanticise terror. It tries for something much more difﬁcult, so difﬁcult that its failure has been splattered for decades over the pages of the American press. The Death of Klinghoﬀer attempts to counterpoise toterror’s deadly glamour the life-afﬁrming virtues of the ordinary, of the decent man, of small things."
Such examinations of the opera have been around for years -- the opera was first staged in 1991 -- bit DiMartino showed no interest in doing even the most cursory research about it, choosing instead to transcribe what critics were feeding her and adding her own uninformed outrage on top of it.
Apparently, that's all it takes to write for the MRC these days.
Aaron Klein's Lying Benghazi Book Fail Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein's Benghazi book is tanking -- as of this writing it's ranked at No. 6,845 at Amazon, a dismal ranking for a current-events book that's been out for less than a month -- so he and his publisher, WorldNetDaily, have to do something to gin up sales. So it's desperately trying to pick a fight with Media Matters.
Klein has already challenged Media Matters founder David Brock to a debate, complaining that the group has been "lobbing falsehoods and smears in a clear attempt to discredit the messenger.” As we've noted, WND is falsely denying that Klein is a birther in order to salvage what little credibility he has.
Now, WND and Klein is trying to play gotcha in a Sept. 24 WND article:
In a blog post Wednesday titled “Conservative Media Attack Clinton Allies In Desperate Ploy To Smear Her Over Benghazi,” Media Matters claims Klein’s book “attempted to smear another Clinton ally: former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.”
Continued Media Matters: “Klein suggested that Morell was ‘given’ his new job at the consulting firm Beacon Global Strategies (co-founded by Philippe Reines, a Clinton adviser), ‘in exchange for his silence in the talking points scandal.’”
However, those quotes never appear in Klein’s book. Thy were entirely fabricated by Media Matters.
Klein’s book never states Morell was “given” his job, nor does the quote “in exchange for his silence in the talking points scandal” appear anywhere in the book.
The relevant section of the book states: “Morell served 33 years in the agency and was a frontrunner for CIA director; it is doubtful he resigned to become a family man. Morell later reemerged as a counselor to Beacon Global Strategies, a consult group particularly close to Hillary Clinton. The firm is led by Philippe I. Reines, who served from 2009 to 2013 as Clinton’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Senior Communications Advisor.”
In fact, the Klein quote is not fabricated. From page 177 of Klein's "The Real Benghazi Story":
Morell later reemerged as a counselor to Beacon Global Strategies, a consult group particularly close to Hillary Clinton. Was Morell given this job in exchange for his silence in the talking points scandal?
It comes from a list of "76 key questions for Benghazi investigators to answer," which WND published on Sept. 14 noting that "Klein included the list of questions in his just-released book."
Either Klein is an extremely dishonest reporter, or he doesn't know what's in his own book.
At The MRC, The Truth Is A Distraction Topic: Media Research Center
Conservatives had a field day with a picture of President Obama saluting troops with a hand that also held a coffee cup. But when the media. But when some media outlets highlighted a photo of then-President George W. Bush saluting the troops while holding his dog, Kyle Drennen used a Sept. 24 Media Research Center item to cry foul:
Running defense for Barack Obama on Wednesday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer touted "some of the President's defenders" pushing back against a video of the commander-in-chief sloppily saluting Marines while holding a coffee cup by "circulating this photo of George W. Bush during his presidency...saluting service members while holding his dog, Barney."
Lauer noted that despite Obama gaffe going viral on social media and "sarcastically being called the 'latte salute,'" it "didn't take long for that photo [of Bush] to come out as well."
The hosts of Today's 9 a.m. ET hour revisited the subject, with Tamron Hall declaring: "President George W. Bush saluted as well in a way that was seen as controversial. He was holding Barney, the dog, there." She observed: "So you have people who don't care for President Obama who say, 'This is so disrespectful!' The supporters of Obama then show the picture of Bush. And then it goes back and forth."
News anchor Natalie Morales chimed in to defend Obama: "He's got a lot – he's got ISIS to deal with, a lot on his mind. So, I – you know, there's a lot more – bigger concerns in the world and we're focusing on a cup of coffee."
Rather then just cover the incident as a gaffe for Obama, the NBC morning show sought to muddy the waters by seizing on a photo of Bush put out by liberal spin doctors and dismiss the whole thing as just another "back and forth" between political partisans.
Funny, we don't recall anyone at the MRC getting their knickers in a bunch when Bush did the same thing Obama did. That's not a distraction or "running defense" -- it's reporting facts.
Drennen's just upset that the media reported the truth, thus proving Stephen Colbert's adage that reality has a liberal bias to be correct yetagain.
WND's Jesse Lee Peterson Has Issues With Women Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jesse Lee Peterson has some issues with women.
In August, the WorldNetDaily columnist defended ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith for claiming that women provoke men into abusing them, insisting that "There is cause and effect to everything."
Peterson followed up in his Sept. 21 WND column by attacking the panel of women the NFL hired to look at domestic violence issues in the league in the wake of the Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson incidents:
Under pressure by feminist groups, [NFL Commissioner Roger] Goodell appointed four liberal activist women to head up a “social responsibility” panel that will oversee the NFL’s “policy and procedures” on domestic violence, including Anna Isaacson, Lisa Friel, Janet Randel and Rita Smith. This is like the fox guarding the hen house!
Why is Roger Goodell getting advice from a radical feminist? Why are four liberal women given power over an all-male sport, and which is watched and supported mostly by men? And why are the men going along with this?
Liberals are trying to tie the discipline of spanking to domestic violence.
Charles Barkley rightly noted, “Every black parent in the South is going to be in jail under those circumstances.”
I’m not defending what Adrian Peterson did, but notice how liberals distort situations. If a child is spanked with a thin switch, liberals claim that the parent used a “branch.”
Peterson doesn't mention that the "thin switch" Adrian Peterson used on his son left numerous cuts on the boy's body. Apparently that's OK with Jesse Lee Peterson because it wasn't a "branch."
But Jesse Lee isn't done ranting:
The real problem in our society is violence – man versus woman and woman versus man – born of unresolved anger, which must be rejected. But instead, anger is being used as a blunt instrument by feminists to beat down the NFL.
We on the side of truth must not be seduced by the emotional side of the lie because that’s how the left wins. If we go along with their definitions, it will make criminals out of decent men and women.
Men comprise the major block of NFL fans, but they don’t realize their God-given power. It’s time for men to use their power, and put an end to the feminists’ charade.
It's difficult for Peterson to suggest he's opposed to domestic violence when he's suggesting that Rice and Adrian Peterson are "decent men" and telling men to "realize their God-given power" to save football from "feminists."
MRC's Double Standard on 'The Civil Discourse' Topic: Media Research Center
Sometimes the double standards employed by the Media Research Center are breathtaking in their blatantness.
The latest column from Brent Bozell and Tim Graham is a screed against "The Daily Show," declaring that "time for 'The Daily Show' to be canceled" because "as is so typical of liberals who preach one thing while doing its opposite (Leonardo DiCaprio, call your office), Comedy Central has never felt any responsibility to 'the public discourse.'"
Yeah, like the MRC ever has. Remember when Rush Limbaugh denigrated Sandra Fluke as a slut for daring to talk in public about birth control? Bozell's MRC subordinates were totally down with that, while Bozell himself could muster no criticism of Limbaugh stronger than "Let’s all agree Limbaugh crossed a line," then launched an "I Stand With Rush" website.
On the same day that Bozell and Graham demand the cancellation of "The Daily Show" for offenses to the public discourse, they attack those who call out Limbaugh's offenses to the public discourse.
In a Sept. 24 NewsBusters post, Graham regurgitates Limbaugh's bitter attack on a campaign to dissuade businesses from advertising on Limbaugh's show because of his offenses to the public discourse, regurgitating unsubstantiated claims that the campaign is nothing but "leftist ... agitators trying to ruin his program among advertisers." Graham whines: "Ever since the national Limbaugh show began in 1989, the Left has been eager to 'Flush Rush' and get his show cancelled. Liberals don't really believe in free speech or a vigorous battle of ideas."
Bozell, meanwhile, proves he's even more of a blowhard than Graham, declaring the campaign to be "a blatant left-wing attack on the First Amendment" from "a small handful of hacks trying to intimidate small business owners who advertise on conservative radio." Bozell went on to rant:
The ultra-left's hatred of conservative media and conservative voices is so extreme that they're willing to put mom and pop shops across America out of business to silence them. Hate is the only word to describe what they're doing.
Like Lois Lerner at the IRS, I'm sure Media Matters and Daily Kos believe that the pain and misery they're inflicting on innocent Americans with their war on free speech is justified, but intimidating small business owners with threats and lies is indefensible.
Let's get this straight: Bozell and Graham -- who are nothing if not small-time hacks -- demand the cancellation of "The Daily Show" for offending their conservative sensibilities, then turn around and rant against a group of liberals seeking to cancel the radio show of their right-wing buddy. (Remember, the MRC gave Limbaugh its inaugural "William F. Buckley, Jr. Award for Media Excellence" in 2007.)
Bozell and Graham have demonstrated that they're the ones who don't believe in free speech. Apparently, Bozell and Graham's concerns about preserving "the civil discourse" apply only to liberals -- right-wingers like Limbaugh have free rein to be as uncivil and disgusting as they want.
Like we said, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Posted by Terry K.
at 6:34 PM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:45 PM EDT
WND's Mitchell Lies About Obama And ISIL Topic: WorldNetDaily
You'd think that someone running for office would not want to be caught telling blatant lies. But that's not the way Molotov Mitchell, a candidate for North Carolina legislature, rolls.
In his Sept. 23 WorldNetDaily video, ol' Molotov lies right off the bat by repeatedly and falsely calling President Obama an "imam." Then, Mitchell invents a reason why Obama uses "ISIL" instead of"ISIS":
When Barack Obama uses the term ISIL, he's tipping his hat toward these terrorists. He's saying you're not just the lords of Iraq and Syria, no, you're the lords of Iraq and the Levant. Imam Hussein Obama is implying that Israel is part of their fight, that he's giving ISIS more territory than they actually have. Way more, in fact, and that's bad.
But here's the kicker. By using "Levant," Imam Hussein Obama doesn't even have to say Israel's name. It's almost as if Israel doesn't exist. Everybody knows Imam Hussein Obama is no friend of Israel, so it's no surprise that he uses the one term that undermines them as a nation.
Despite inventing an answer, Mitchell concludes by claiming the "million-dollar" question is why Obama uses ISIL.
If ol' Molotov had bothered to do any research before making his video, he would have found that, as we've previously noted, use of "Levant" is a more accurate translation of the group's name, and ISIS aggravates numerous women named Isis.
If Mitchell can't do basic research before spouting off in one of his videos, how can he be trusted to act competently as the political officeholder he wants North Carolinians to vote him as?
NEW ARTICLE: Bob Unruh's Anti-Gay Agenda Topic: WorldNetDaily
As befits a WorldNetDaily reporter, Unruh believes only one side of LGBT-related stories should be reported -- the side of those who hate gays and transgenders. Read more >>
MRC's Graham: Don't Talk About Non-Heterosexuals On Sunday Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham hasyetanother transgender freakout in a Sept. 21 NewsBusters post:
The Washington Post has made it clear that Sunday is not the Lord’s Day. It’s the best day for LGBT preaching. In 2012, they splashed across the front page “TRANSGENDER AT FIVE.” In this Sunday edition, it’s an 18-year-old girl: “WHEN NO GENDER FITS.”
As usual, “the world” is having trouble sympathetically understanding girls who don’t want to be their “assigned” gender. Over a large color photograph of the girl in question tying her own necktie are the words “The world insists, in a host of way, that Kelsey Beckham choose: Male or female? But what feels most right to Kelsey is neither.”
The Post goes all out when it has lessons to teach: splashed across the front page, and then two whole pages inside, with eight color pictures taking up everything above the fold, with the words inside (in caps): “A QUEST TO BE JUST A PERSON.”
There is no space -- none -- for any dissent from the LGBT hard line.
First: We didn't realize it was forbidden to talk about things that didn't relate to heterosexuality on "the Lord's Day."
Second: there is no transgendering going on per se. It's about a biological teen girl who doesn't see herself as either gender. Sexuality is not even discussed in the Post article.
Thrid: It says something about Graham's hatred for non-heterosexuals that he sees someone who's on "a quest to be just a person" to be a "hard line" view. Apparently, he believes any article on a gay or transgender person should be "balanced" by someone like Scott Lively or the Westboro Baptist Church explaining how that person is a deviant and going to hell.
Again: We can't talk about non-heterosexuals on Sunday? Really, Tim?
CNS-Mark Levin Lack of Disclosure Watch Topic: CNSNews.com
It appears that CNSNews.com remainsincapable of being honest with its readers about its relationship with Mark Levin, despite presenting itself as a "news" operation that purports to abide by journalistic standards including disclosure of conflicts of interest.
A Sept. 17 CNS item by Michael Morris plays stenograher to Levin's pearls of wisdom yet again, detailing how Levin "addressed Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Justice Thurgood Marshall, 'leftists, liberals, and statists' about the issue of race." The next day, a "news" article by Susan Jones transcribed how Levin declared that "We're surrounded by knuckleheads, and the problem is, they're supposed to be protecting the country."
Neither item mentioned the fact that CNS, through its parent the Media Research Center, is in a business arrangement with Levin in which Levin promotes the MRC on his radio show and the MRC touts Levin's endorsement.
On top of that, CNS reporter Penny Starr goes all fangirl on Twitter: "Outstanding routine from Levin tonight on big government! You are awesome!"
CNS should just officially give up the pretense to objectivity and declare that it will fluff conservatives and refuse to treat liberals fairly. That's what Starr, Jones and the rest of the CNS crew are already doing.