Another WND Columnist Peddles Lies About Planned Parenthood, Sanger Topic: WorldNetDaily
In the long, longtradition of WorldNetDaily writers spreading lies about Planned Parenthood and founder Margaret Sanger, Carl Jackson made his own contribution in his April 7 WND column:
Abortion is inherently racist. Many of you already know that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and creator of the Negro Project (a program designed to sterilize unknowing black women), hoped to rid the earth of those she deemed “undesirables.” It’s no wonder that 78 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in the ‘hood, according to Black Genocide.org.
As Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler points out, Sanger's Negro Project was about educating black women about birth control, not forcing sterilization on them. And while Sanger was a eugenicist -- a popular ideology during much of her lifetime -- there's no evidence she was especially racist or thought that blacks were "undesirables" simply because of their race.
We've previously discredited Jackson's assertion that "78 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in the ‘hood"; actually, a majority of them are located in white neighborhoods.
And WND complains about being labeled as "fake news" while it continues to publish such falsehoods?
MRC: Don't Blame Ailes for Fox News' Culture of Sexual Harassment Topic: NewsBusters
Matt Norcross -- who fancies himself to be the "Carolina Culture Warrior" -- has a new post at the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog attacking the idea of CBS-owned Showtime making a miniseries about Roger Ailes' final days as head of Fox News.
Norcross complains that the series "will draw on reporting from far-left New York magazine writer Gabriel Sherman, who had several major scoops related to the sexual harassment scandal that led to Ailes’ ouster last summer." At no point does Norcross support his assertion that Sherman is "far-left" (another example of the MRC indiscriminately tossing around the descriptor) beyond him reporting on Fox News, and even then he offers no evidence Sherman has ever gotten anything wrong.
Norcross then grumbles:
One of the reasons you know this is going to be a hit-piece on the only news organization that – unlike CBS – reports stories that Middle America cares about, such as political corruption, illegal immigration, and terrorism threats from radical Islamists. Another reason is because one of the writers and executive producers is Tom McCarthy, the director of the anti-Catholic film Spotlight.
Norcross' assertion that only Fox News covers "political corruption, illegal immigration, and terrorism threats from radical Islamists" is stunningly ignorant, especially given that just a few days earlier on his own blog, he apologized for writing posts that were "over the top, and ... generalized a group of people" and said he would have to clean up his act in writing for the MRC.
Also, "Spotlight" was not "anti-Catholic" -- if it's anti-anything, it's anti-child abuse and anti-covering up said abuse. (The MRC whined about the film's mere existence.) It's "anti-Catholic" only in the sense that it was Catholic Church officials who were doing the covering up.
After noting that former Fox News hosts Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson had lodged harrassment complaints against ailes, Norcross wrote: "To be fair to Carlson and Kelly, their cases against Mr. Ailes are chilling. No woman deserves to be treated like they say they were in the work place. With that said, Ailes was one person. And what he did should not be painted on the network as a whole."
Norcross hasn't been watching Fox News very closely, has he? Fox News was Ailes' brainchild, and it brought us innovations like female hosts in short skirts, the "leg cam" and, yes, a culture that clearly condoned sexual harassment. Ailes created all of this, so it's nonsensical to separate him from it and dismiss his behavior as the work of a mere employee.
You know who else blames Ailes for all this? Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz, who explicitly states Fox News is trying to "change the culture" post-Ailes.
Norcross curiously doesn't mention Bill O'Reilly's history of paying millions of dollars to settle sexual harassment claims, even though that's very much in the news right now and something that was obviously condoned under Ailes.
Norcorss added: "Before she signed off from her job to join NBC, Kelly actually thanked the network, and even said that her colleagues were like a second family to her, especially the Murdochs – the controlling family of parent company 21st Century Fox." As if that somehow made Ailes' alleged harassment of her all better.
Norcross then ranted:
CBS, Showtime, Tom McCarthy, and others are still furious that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election. As a result, they are taking it out on the majority of the American public they are supposed to cater towards, and especially the only major news organization that had the courage to cover it all without favor or prejudice.
Hollywood has now proven itself as doing anything it can to destroy the conservative movement in the United States, including the one news network that treats it without prejudice.
Norcross forgets that if Fox News didn't have this extensively documented culture of sleaze and harassment, there would be no miniseries to make.
WND's Kinchlow Still Smearing People on Welfare Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last month, we caught WorldNetDaily columnist Ben Kinchlow repeating a bogus right-wing meme to smear people on welfare as lazy. He does something similar again in his April 2 column:
I saw a statistic last week about the black community, and it gave me a moment’s pause. At first, I was shocked. But after consideration, I realized it was a natural reaction to something. What was it?
Well, I’ll give you some information and then ask the question again. Let’s see if you come up with the same answer I did.
Suppose you are a young man, about 19 years old, and an old gentleman comes up to you and says: “I’m your rich relative. I have more money than you can count, and I will pay you for every baby you can make by as many different women as you can.”
“Really?!” You ask. “What’s the catch?”
He replies: “No catch. All you have to do is make the babies, and I will support them until they are 18 years of age. My only requirement is that you never live with any of the mothers, and you never contribute a dime of support to any of your children. In fact, if you try and take responsibility, I won’t help you. But, as long as you don’t lift a finger to help your child, I will feed them, clothe them, house them and give them full health care until they are 18.”
You ask, “How many times can I do that?”
“As often as you want,” he says.
You ask, “How many women?”
“As many as you can,” he responds. “Furthermore, I will give you so much cash assistance, food assistance, medical assistance and housing assistance that you actually will not be able to afford to take an entry-level job and continue to receive your benefits. If for some reason the mothers – your girlfriends – don’t qualify for assistance, or if you, or they, become addicted to drugs and alcohol, I would declare you disabled and give you a check every month to enable your addiction and help you pay for your drugs. However, if you try to get a job or any other additional help, I’ll cut off all your assistance. Now, tell me: How many babies can you make?”
Now you might be thinking: “That’s just plain ridiculous, Ben! No one would make a stupid offer like that!”
Really? Well, these policies are precisely the impetus of financial rewards for teenage pregnancies, illegitimacy and broken families.
The truth of the matter is, those promises are made to thousands of young men and women every day in this country. The rich relative is Uncle Sam, and the promise is welfare. The results of these policies are a dramatic rise in teenage pregnancies, the illegitimacy rate and single-parent families, never mind the startling breakdown of the classic American family.
We haven't been able to figure out yet where chain email he lifted this from but no, Ben, that's not how welfare works. The father can be held accountable for child support -- indeed, they're legally obligated to do so. And as even Time magazine points out: "There are fewer pariahs more deeply loathed by society at large than the deadbeat dad, the fully-grown man, who, having had his fun, abandons his responsibilities."
Kinchlow goes on to blame Great Society-era programs of "agenda of welfare state programs that also included Medicare and the Department of Housing and Urban Development" for all of this.
Kinchlow has a very cynical view of his fellow blacks. That does serve his political agenda, though.
The Clinton Derangement Never Stops At The MRC Topic: Media Research Center
Even though the election ended several months ago, the Media Research Center has a lingering case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Scott Whitlock whined in an April 5 MRC post:
What a difference a day makes. CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King on Wednesday grilled Ivanka Trump on being “complicit” in her father’s administration, one that many are “very afraid” of. This contrasts to the fawning interview with another first daughter, Chelsea Clinton, on Tuesday. For that, fan girl King gushed over the younger Clinton’s political prospects: “Are you running? Are you running? Are you running?”
The interview, nearly 15 minutes over three segments, gave King time to hammer that question over and over: “Can you give us an example of something you disagree with [your dad] on and that you think by speaking up to him it made him change his position or soften his position?”
Citing those mysterious “critics” again, King pushed the Trump administration as scary: “There are critics who are very worried and very afraid. Who are concerned about the direction that country is going in. And what do you say to those people?”
In contrast, Chelsea Clinton on Tuesday endured no such grilling. Her mom’s private e-mail server never came up. The Clinton Foundation and its sketchy donor base never came up. Instead, Charlie Rose breathlessly wondered, “The question everybody wants to know, how is your mother?” He added, “Do you think [your mom] will run for public office again?”
The difference, of course, is that Ivanka is serving as a key adviser to her father, the president; Chelsea served no such role for her mother and was not expected to had Hillary won the presidency.
Whitlock's bosses, Brent Bozell and Tim Graham, expanded this fit of Clinton derangement into an entire column:
King channeled all the liberal outrage that Trump should be like a younger version of Hillary Clinton inside the White House, stopping everything that liberals don't like. She cited anonymous "critics" — i.e., the people she'd just spoken with down the hall at the water cooler — bemoaning her failure to foil the conservatives.
Now compare: The day before CBS launched into Trump, it offered a typically fawning interview to Chelsea Clinton. No one has ever asked Chelsea Dearest whether she was "complicit" in her father's sexual offenses, or "complicit" in her family's corrupt foundation, even though she's a vice chair. Put the emphasis on "vice."
Instead, America witnessed all the mandatory mewling over her wonderfulness. Will she run for president? King couldn't curb her enthusiasm. She said: "Is there anybody else in the Clinton household thinking about running? And by anybody, I mean you. You could take your book on the road while you're campaigning with 'Get Informed, Get Inspired, Get Going.' I feel like deja vu with your mom all over again. Are you running? Are you running? Are you running?"
Earth to CBS: The country just said no to a Clinton dynasty.
If "the country just said no to a Clinton dynasty,"w hy is the MRC insisting on obsessing about them still?
WND Finds A Limit To Its Trump-Fluffing With Syria Attack Topic: WorldNetDaily
The Media Research Center wasn't the only Trump-fluffing ConWeb outlet to find a limit for their love for Donald Trump in his missile attack on a Syrian military base in retaliation for the poison gas attack on civilians.
WND first gave a space for far-right radio host Michael Savage to go into freakout mode:
“Do you want war with Russia, all of you idiots, all of you fools who are pounding the war drums?” Savage said Thursday afternoon.
Calling himself a “conservative peacenik,” he said Democrats “have been poking the Russian bear since Trump won the election.”
“The constant accusations of them fixing our election is not making them friendly towards us in the least. And why are they doing it? Because Trump said he could work with them?”
But Savage said it “doesn’t stop there.”
“People in Trump’s own sphere are turning him towards the beating war drums,” he told his listeners. “Dems and the establishment GOP both handcuffed loyal Trump advisers like (Attorney General) Jeff Sessions, and now (House Intelligence Committee Chairman) Devin Nunes, to take themselves out of any investigations on the Russia conspiracy. Steve Bannon, a close adviser, is asked to step down from his NSC (National Security Council) role.
“Trump’s War” is available — autographed by Michael Savage — at the WND Superstore!
“Who got to you, Mr. President? Who is whispering in your ear and could have made you make this dramatic of a change towards Russia in just three days?” he asked.
WND editor Joseph Farah followed up with a column declaring: "I strongly disagree with President Trump’s decision to attack Syria. For starters, I don’t see any proof that Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for the sarin gas weapons detonation that prompted it." Farah is totally accepting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's claim that "denied it was his intent to kill civilians. Instead, he claims a bombing run to destroy a depot of ISIS sarin agents was the plan" at face value, adding, "Could it be true that the dispersion of the sarin agent was a mistake? Why not at least investigate the claim? The Trump administration says it has compelling video to make the case. Why not release it publicly?"
WND columnist Craige McMillan followed up by suggesting that the NSA is lying to Trump by blaming Assad for the gas attack because "The Deep State pledges allegiance only to itself. Nothing would please its allies more than to embroil America in another war."
WND also documented columnist Pat Buchanan lamenting (to Michael Savage, natch) that Trump "reacted emotionally, ineffectively and also unconstitutionally."
WND even did an unusually balanced article on the conflict among Trump's supporters. Which means WND can write balanced journalism if it actually cares to do so. Most of the time, however, it doesn't.
MRC Splits on Trump Missile Attack on Syria Topic: Media Research Center
We seem to have found the one thing where right-wing dissent on Trump is apparently permissible: President Trump's missile attack on Syria in retaliation for its gas attack on civilians.
The main part of the Media Research Center was in full rah-rah mode, offering implicit justification for Trump's actions:
Nicholas Fondacaro declared Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to be a "war criminal" and howled that the " dictator ... killed dozens and wounded hundreds more in a chemical weapon attack on his own people. Fondacaro also called Assad a "butcher."
Curtis Houck called the gas attack "one of the worst atrocities this generation has ever seen " and mocked the idea that Trump's missile atack was a distraction from the growing controversy over links between Trump aides and Russia.
Scott Whitlock huffed that Assad "brutally massacred over 70 of his own people" in the midst of mocking ABC's BarbaraWalters for having said nice things about Assad nearly a decade ago, when he was not involved in a brutal civil war.
Kristine Marsh insisted it was "absurd" for "The View" co-host Joy Behar to claim that if Presidenet Obama had done the same thing, Republicans would have tried to impeach him.
But the tone was much different at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com. It reposted to its front page a 2014 item on James Madison noting that the president should use military force without prior authorization from Congress only "to repel sudden attacks" (yes, Madison gets a byline, continuing CNS' absurdinsistence on giving bylines to dead people) and a 2013 column by CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey asserting that the president had no constitutional authority to launch military action in Syria when that president was Obama.
CNS also posted an April 10 column by the Cato Institute's Daniel Mitchell arguing that the U.S. shouldn't get involved in Syria and an April 11 column by Pat Buchanan making a similar anti-war argument.
WND's Farah Tires of Dealing With Fake News, Doesn't Commit to Stop Publishing It Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldnetDaily editor Joseph Farah -- unironically, near as we can tell -- writes this in his March 31 column:
Do you know why people love “fake news”?
Do you know why so many “fake news” sites carry it?
Do you know why “fake news” goes viral in the form of emails spread all over the planet with a click of the “send” button?
Let me count the reasons:
It’s easier to make stuff up than report factually.
It gets clicks that turn into revenue for enterprising lazy sites.
Despite being untrue, it is fun, entertaining and often makes people feel good.
Yes, it’s frustrating for people like me who struggle to support actual news sites. It’s confusing, too, because when someone sends me one of these inviting “stories,” I usually wind up wasting at least a precious minute or two of my day determining its falsehood.
WND's reputation for publishing fake news is legion. In the past month alone, we've seen WND uncritically tout Andrew Napolitano's discredited conspiracy theory that British intelligence wiretapped Donald Trump's campaign at the behest of President Obama, and WND columnist Barbara Simpson either taking wildly out of context or completely fabricating quotes by Genocide Watch's Gregory Stanton to promote fears about a "genocide" of whites in South Africa. Both the "news" article and Simpson's column remain live and uncorrected at WND's website.
If Farah is tired of dealing with fake news, maybe he shouldn't publish so much of it.
Who Is The MRC Gratuitiously Labeling 'Far-Left' Now? Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center blogger Tom Blumer complains in a March 26 post:
Sadly, U.S. readers need to understand, and I daresay most don't, that reporters in Europe, including those for U.S.-based news outlets, routinely tag anyone who supports any form of border control — or, for that matter, advocates freer markets, or is prolife, or holds virtually any center-right view, i.e., what most people in the U.S. would consider "moderate" or "mainstream" — as "far-right." Meanwhile, the use of the term "far-left" is extraordinarily rare.
Blumer doesn't read his own website, does he?
As we've documented, the MRC is a leader in the gratuitous usage of "far-left," applying it to things that clearly are not (like the sports blog Deadspin). This fascination has continued in the past month since our previous compilation (with helpful added bolding):
Curtis Houck called MSNBC host Chris Matthews a "far-left pundit."
Houck also calledPlanned Parenthood a "far-left group."
Blumer himself ranted that Erica Groshen, head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics during the Obama administraiton, was a "far-left partisan." (In fact, the evidence to support Blumer's claim about Groshen is laughably scant.)
Brad Wilmouth declaredJoy Reid to be a "far-left MSNBC host."
Blumer returned to complain about "far-left institutions of what used to be higher learning."
Houck claimed that David Cay Johnston is a "far-left journalist."
Blumer ranted that Meetup.com "decided to turn itself into a de facto online far-left, anti-Trump, political action platform."
James Powers calledLes Leopold a "far left economic activist."
Wilmouth proclaimedBill Maher to be a "far-left comedian."
Matt Norcross declared that Joshua Safran, creator and showrunner for the ABC show "Quantico," is a "far-left man."
Jay Maxson insisted that ESPN is "aligned with the Far Left."
Houck complained about the New York Times' alleged "Far-Left, Snarky Headlines Editorializing Against Trump."
Houck calledMichelle Barnard a "far-left panelist."
MRC chief Brent Bozell ranted about the "far-left" media who are purportedly plotting to completely destroy Donald Trump’s administration.
Norcross called Gabriel Sherman a "far-left New York magazine writer."
As we noted on our previous list, some of these people and things may legitimately be described as "far left," but most cannot be; they only look "far left" to people who are far on the right, like MRC employees and bloggers.
Blumer's rant over labeling was set off by Reuters calling France's Marine Le Pen a "far-right leader." Oddly, Blumer didn't dispute the labeling of Le Pen beyond his rant -- perhaps because there's plenty of evidence to back up the label.
In an effective rehash of a February article he wrote for WorldNetDaily, Newman in an April 1 WND article again tosses around the word "genocide" to describe the plight of white farmers in South Africa, even invoking Genocide Watch's Gregory Stantonto push the idea. But as our contact with Stanton made clear, while there are concerns about what is happening in the country, the situation for whites in South Africa is nowhere near genocide level, and the crime rate is much higher for South African blacks.
Newman's point is further hammered home with the headline "Murder rate for these white farmers 20 times international average"; Newman cites Pieter Groenewald, leader of the Afrikaaner-linked Freedom Front Plus party, as framing the murder of white farmers as "a staggering 133 per 100,000" compared with the "international average murder rate" of 7 per 100,000. Neither Newman nor Groenewald offer any evidence that backs up that dubiously cherry-picked statistic.
While South Africa does have a crime problem, it affects blacks much more than whites, who are still far less likely to be murdered than a black person.
Newman goes on to complain about "systematic efforts to discriminate against and destroy the minority community" in South Africa -- the "minority community" in question being whites. We suspect Newman is not terribly concerned about any non-white "minority communities" anywhere.
As she did last month, CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones' lead story on the new unemployment numbers touts the record number of people in the workforce. By contrast, Jones' unemployment reports under a Democratic president focused on how many people were not in the workforce.
Another thing Jones is doing under Trump that she largely failed to do under President Obama: explain why the workforce participation rate is so low.
This is all to cover up the fact that only 98,000 jobs were created in March, which she didn't get around to mentioning until the fourth paragraph of her article and which even she had to concede was a disappointing number.
Jones also grumbled that "The Democrat Party [sic] is giving Donald Trump no credit for the good news in Friday’s jobs report," sneering that "The DNC is offended that Trump, a successful job-creator himself, has taken credit for tens of thousands of jobs saved or created on his watch." Jones doesn't mention that Trump played no role in creating most of those jobs.
The only sidebar, again, is CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey touting the creation of more manufacturing jobs while bemoaning that more government jobs were created as well. Unike his articles in the Obama era, though, the number of government jobs didn't make the headline.
AWOL again is CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman, whose job during the Obama era was to tell us the "real" unemployment rate and highlight the number of unemployed blacks.
NEW ARTICLE -- WND: Don't Do (To Trump) As We Did (To Obama) Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily has a lengthy track record of "conveniently forgetful news," complaining that others were treating Donald Trump the same way it treated Barack Obama. Read more >>
MRC Tries to Defend Dubious Clinton-Uranium Link Topic: Media Research Center
In a March 29 post, the Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro tried to dismiss how President Trump's accusation that Russia paid off the Clintons in return for control of part of the uranium supply in the U.S. has been largely discredited:
But Pelley’s bold assertion is highly misleading. It wasn’t Hillary who was alleged to have been paid for the Uranium, it was her husband and the family foundation. And there was not one, but two credible sources who found those connections.
As many would remember, these assertions were brought up in the book Clinton Cash, which was written by Peter Schweizer. One of his earlier books, Throw Them All Out, opened the nation’s eyes to how members of Congress take advantage of their insider knowledge and position to enrich themselves. The book was so successful that Congress was forced to pass bill limited that ability, even though they later removed it.
In addition to Schweizer, The New York Times spent considerable time looking into these claims and found them to be credible. The Times found that Uranium One’s chairman used an intermediary organization to donate $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation “as the Russians gradually assumed control”[.]
Fondacaro omits two pertinent facts. First, the New York Times' report was based on Schweizer's claims. Second, Schweizer's book "Clinton Cash" was funded by a group called the Government Accountability Institute, which was headed by one Steve Bannon, who later joined the campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump, and is now a top aide to Trump in the White House.
Bannon's hands and cash on Schweizer's work should taint it just as much as the MRC loves to claim any accusation made about a Republican or conservative by a "liberal" group is similarly tainted.
Will Fondacaro or the MRC ever admit that? Not a chance.
WND's Peterson Challenges Masculinity of Liberals Topic: WorldNetDaily
In ranting against the repeal of North Carolina's anti-gay HB2 "bathroom bill," in his April 2 WorldNetDaily column, Jesse Lee Peterson is all about the insults and name-calling. He declares the repeal to be "an evil perpetrated against normal people, innocent children and misguided 'transgender' people" and asserted that supporters of the repeal "love money over people."
Peterson then expanded his name-calling to all liberals, while also defending discrimination against people he doesn't agree with (while also dutifully plugging his WND-published book in the process):
I must say that Bruce Springsteen is not a real man, nor is any liberal male. Liberals think themselves defenders of “victims,” but they condemn good and promote evil. When you don’t think clearly and logically (like a man), you create emotion-fueled garbage. The lack of love of fathers opened the door for this mess. Weak men allow it.
Discrimination against people in their wrong is good – a wakeup call reminding them that they’re wrong. But companies mired in liberalism discriminate against people who are right – to protect those in the wrong! In 2015, a Planet Fitness in Midland, Michigan, suspended the membership of a woman who warned other women about a “huge” man wearing a wig and “a little bit of blush” in the women’s locker room.
Pretending wrong is right traumatizes and brainwashes children. Jesus warned that anyone who causes children to stumble would have been better off with a millstone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea.
The way to end this madness not merely battling the symptoms (bad laws and insane people ruling over the sane). To combat the root issue, as I wrote in “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame and Victimhood,” we must return the people back to their fathers (and, therefore, back to their Father in heaven), so that they may think and see clearly again. Then men can lead by example, as a fearless, anger-free force for good.
Peterson even baselessly attacked North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, claiming his 2016 election was marred by "suspicions of voter fraud – aided by liberal judges who think voter ID laws are 'racist'." In fact, the "voter fraud" allegation was a desperate smear by the losing candidate, incumbent Gov. and HB2 promoter Pat McCrory, despite a lack of evidence to support the claim.
It also turns out that North Carolina's voter ID law did, in fact, have racist intent behind it and was deliberately designed to discourage black turnout.
So Peterson thinks men who oppose discrimination aren't "real men." How about a man who lies and deceives for political and personal gain?
MRC Mocks LGBT Youth As Victims of 'Indoctrination,' 'Stupid Trendiness' Topic: Media Research Center
The anti-gay hate and condescension oozes from the Media Research Center's Matt Philbin in a March 31 post headlined "Study: 20% of Millennials Are LGBTQ; Indoctrination Wins! Or Not":
BREAKING: Younger people are more susceptible to stupid trendiness. That’s if you believe a new study from Harris Polling and GLAAD, the speech police for all things gay. The online survey of 2,037 purports to show that one in five millennials swims in the LGBTQ (and sometimes Y) alphabet soup. Even more exciting, according to Logo’s Dan Avery, "more of this generation is comfortable identifying outside traditional binaries such as 'gay/straight' and 'man/woman.'"
As you might have suspected, the results aren’t exactly super-scientific, given the methodology can’t even provide a margin of error. But only a cynic doesn’t trust the veracity of all online interactions. (Sadly, the study doesn’t tell us how many nephews of deposed Nigerian oil ministers identify as gender-fluid, but we suspect fewer are checking the M/F box on the forms giving them access to your savings account.)
Of course, compared to the last generation, young people who identify as LGBTQ are twice as likely to garner unmerited attention, and those who are gender non-conforming are three times as likely to be celebrated as a courageous grievance group. So some movement of the numbers is to be expected, and it’s easy to see why Americans wildly overestimate the real percentage (3.8) of LGBTQ in their midst. But America is not yet the high school from Glee.
Philbin, interestingly, does not prove his contention that more youth identifying as LGBT is the result of "indoctrination" or "stupid trendiness." In fact, one could plausibly argue that Philbin's hatred of gays is itself the result of right-wing indoctrination and stupid trendiness.
And after quoting a GLAAD representative saying that "Though laws can be unwritten, hearts and minds in America have been changed for the better," Philbin sneered: "If you just threw up in your mouth a little, sorry."
It takes dedication to hate an entire class of people that completely -- indoctrination, if you will.
Discredited anti-Kinsey obsessive Judith Reisman devoted her March 29 WND column to attacking Rockefeller for giving money from his family's foundation to "the father of the sexual revolution, Dr. Alfred Kinsey of Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute, and Margaret Sanger, the founder of abortion-on-demand and population-control agent Planned Parenthood." She went on to rant:
The Rockefeller Foundation was a major funding source for pedophile Kinsey. In his 1948 book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” Kinsey naturally claimed proof that children are sexual from birth and unharmed by sex with adults. He even showed his “proof” on five tables timing the alleged “orgasms” from serial sexual abuse and rapes of children as young as 2 months old. (The babies and children screamed, fainted and/or convulsed during the abuse; Kinsey, an S&M bi-homosexual pedophile, called these reactions “orgasms.”)
Buoyed by a Rockefeller Foundation financed media tsunami and a respected scientific publisher, Kinsey’s child-rape “data” were accepted as “scientific” evidence of the “true sex lives” American adults and children. Kinsey’s “fake science” was and is today taught as factual data in law and in “higher” education.
Kinsey’s book launched the pornography industry in 1954 via Hefner’s Playboy, prompted a wholesale revision of our sex offense laws through the 1955 Model Penal Code, called “virtually a Kinsey document,” legalized mass abortion and same-sex sodomy, and spawning our pedophilia and child porno-crime epidemics.
As we've pointed out, Reisman's accusations that Kinsey conducted sexual experiments on children to get that data on sexual response has been discredited.
Reisman also gets stuff wrong about the Model Penal Code. It actually wasn't approved until 1962; the only thing that came out in 1955 were two drafts, out of 13 issued between 1953 and 1961.
We have to go to a 2003 Human Events article to find out what the heck her deal is with the Model Penal Code: that it sought to stop the criminalization of private, consensual sexual behavior. Also, she's upset that the code's authors "quoted Kinsey’s junk science in order to overthrow the Judeo-Christian sexual morality of The Greatest Generation and replace it with Kinsey’s ideology of sexual anarchy."
Reisman concluded by ranting:
Rockefeller Foundation’s sponsorship of Kinsey’s child rape-based sexual freedom agenda and its domino effect on law, society and culture, our modern child porno-criminal, pedophile and trafficking epidemics, and the eugenics-based work of Planned Parenthood, which justifies killing millions of unborn children, has certainly proven the truth of Justice Brandeis predictions.
David Rockefeller’s contribution to this bloody, destructive legacy must never be forgotten.
Meanwhile, Reisman's legacy is all about trying to falsely smear Kinsey.