I am going to make an analogy, and I want to preface it with an iron bound disclaimer: I am in no way and am absolutely not intending to compare the people in my analogy, only the situation. In other words, I would absolutely never compare Donald Trump or any other human ever born with Jesus Christ, but the basic situations that happened two thousand years apart are, in a secular frame of thought, very similar.

The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were the absolute authorities on interpreting the written word of the prophets and had the power to excommunicate anyone they wished, in a body known as the Sanhedrin. They held power over doctrine and custom and relished their exalted place in religious society.

They loved being deferred to, given the best seats in the synagogue, the highest places of honor at social functions and being shown signs of respect on the streets and in the market places.

They kept the Jewish laws and commandments to the Nth degree, tithing even the herbs in their gardens, but they figured out a way to game the system.

If the law didn’t specifically state that you should not evict widows and orphans from their homes or some other evil, profit-making scheme, they did it all under the veil of being the most righteous men in the nation.

When Jesus came along, healing the sick and raising the dead and preaching a salvation of laws written on the conscience instead of laws written on parchment, which could be circumvented, He threatened their high standing, their lives of luxury and power.

They even made the statement that if something wasn’t done about this charismatic young Galilean, they could lose their place.

Jesus was an outsider, a Jew, but the bearer of a New Covenant, exposing lies and fallacies and shining a light in the dark places of corruption and deceit.

Now, put aside the deity and do not accuse me of the blasphemy of comparing a sinful human with the sinless Son of the Living God, because that is NOT my intention. But for a minute, stop and think of the establishment politicians as Pharisees, who, regardless of what party is in power – and they are nearly interchangeable, by the way – have had their way in this country for a century or more.

All of a sudden, as unexpectedly as a July snow, a brash outsider, who minces no words, takes no prisoners and calls ’em like he sees ’em, status be damned, is elected to the highest office in the free world, and he releases a swarm of flies into their ointment, disrespecting their traditions, and calls not only theirs, but the media’s bluff, without fear of retaliation.

-- Charlie Daniels, May 8 CNSNews.com column

Posted by Terry K. at 12:48 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center has been protecting Oliver North since his ascension to president of the National Rifle Association. We've already documented how the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com, failed to mention North's central (and criminal) role in the Iran-contra scandal -- the one thing he's most famous -- the MRC itself complained that it was accurately reported.

A May 8 MRC post by Scott Whitlock huffed that media reports called North "controversial."  Whitlock can't dispute the accuracy of that claim, so he takes a stab at whataboutism in the form of a Clinton Equivocation: "How often was Bill Clinton referred to as a 'controversial' Whitewater figure or Hillary Clinton a 'controversial' person connected to having a secret e-mail server?"

Whitlock might have a point if Bill Clinton was ever charged, let alone convicted of anything regarding Whitewater -- which he wasn't. Similarly, Hillary Clinton's email server may have been "controversial" -- though that's been mostly due to the Republican obsession over it. But despite an FBI investigation, Hillary has never been charged with criminal wrongdoing regarding it.

By contrast, North was convicted on destroying documents, obstructing Congress and taking a bribe in relation to the Iran-contra scandal, which were ultimately dismissed only because of having been granted immunity for his congressional testimony.

Whitlock also tried to dismiss the scandal as old news not worth bringing up, variously calling it a "scandal from 30 yerars ago" and "a scandal from 1987." Whitlock failed to mention that Whitewater was 25 years ago.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:37 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily apparently seems to think that since God purportedly intervened in American affairs to make sure Donald Trump was elected president, He should be helping right-wingers out with their political agenda.

We've already documented WND columnist Larry Nevenhoven lamenting that God wasn't helping him go gay-bashing. Now, another WND columnist is begging for divine political intervention.

In a May 15 column headlined "Is God mad at America because of abortion?" Jerry Newcombe asks, "Is America shaking its collective fist at God through the wholesale slaughter of the unborn?" After some dubious likening of abortion to slavery, Newcombe writes:

Does God sleep? Does the blood of tens of millions of aborted babies not cry out to Him?

During the Civil War, the great American author William Wadsworth Longfellow wrote a Christmas carol entitled “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.” In this poem, he struggles with how the bells peal out “peace on earth, good will to men,” but the reality he sees is anything but.

He continues: “And in despair I bowed my head: / ‘There is no peace on earth,’ I said / ‘For hate is strong, and mocks the song / Of peace on earth, good will to men.'”

How to resolve this seeming conflict? He comes to this great conclusion: “Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: / ‘God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; / The wrong shall fail, the right prevail, / With peace on earth, good will to men.'”

Just because evil may prevail for a time, God will only allow it for a while. There will come a time of reckoning. How can America pretend that God Almighty is pleased with the blood of 60 million unborn babies on our hands? Lord, have mercy.

Newcombe has previously lied to downplay the extent of anti-abortion violence.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:06 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

CNSNews.com reporter Melanie Arter was helping her favorite stenography client, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, out of another Trump-instigated mess -- his tweet that perhaps the government should "take away credentials" of journalists that write things he doesn't like -- in May 9 article. Arter regurgitated Sander's insistence that the White House believes in afree press, and then pretty much stay in stenography mode later in the article:

The press secretary said it’s the media’s responsibility to report accurate information and pointed to a New York Times report accusing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of being AWOL when he was really securing the release of the three Americans from North Korea. She also pointed to a Washington Post report, which accused first lady Melania Trump of not living in the White House.

“At the same time, the press has a responsibility to put out accurate information. Just yesterday, the New York Times accused the Secretary of State for being AWOL -- AWOL -- when he was flying across the globe to bring three Americans home. That is an outrageous claim,” Sanders said.

“Just earlier this week, The Washington Post accused the first lady of not living in the White House. That outrageous claim was then repeated again in this room,” she added.

If Arter had bothered to fact-check Sanders -- something she's loath to do -- she would have found that  Sanders' claims were, shall we say, less than truthful.

The word "AWOL" appears nowhere in the New York Times article Sanders is bashing. The article accurately points out that former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was "thousands of miles away" when Trump announced his intention to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and that current secretary of state Mike Pompeo, was "again thousands of miles away, this time on an unannounced visit to Pyongyang" when Trump announced "what could be the most significant diplomatic announcement of his presidency — that he would exit the Iran nuclear agreement." The Times alsoreported that such absences "left perplexed European diplomats privately complaining that they were having trouble getting answers from Washington, and created an uncertainty about what was next that spanned the Atlantic Ocean." While it was later revealed that Pompeo was trying to secure the release of three Americans imrpisoned in North Korea, that was not a done deal at the time the article first appeared.

Sanders got the Post article she attacked completely wrong. It never claimed that Melania Trump doesn't livein the White House; toward the end of the lengthy article -- which focuses on her daily routine and her unusual distance from her husband as a presidential spouse -- it notes that Melania not living in the White House has been a "persistent rumor," then immediately quotes Melania's spokeswoman and the White House social secretary denying it.

And not questioning anything Sanders says, even when it's misleading or even false, is a big part of Arter helping her do cleanup.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:13 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

We've already caught WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah spreading the false claim that AB 2943, a proposed law in California that would ban anti-gay conversion therapy for commercial purposes, would also ban the Bible. WND has apparently decided to double down on misinformation about the bill.

An anonymously written May 15 WND article misleads from the get-go, falsely claiming that the bill is designed so "people with same-sex inclinations don’t hear messages challenging them." Then it quotes Mike Huckabee ranting at length about how the bill is "one of the most dramatic ideological shifts away from the First Amendment in our nation’s history" and hyperbolically claiming that "it can easily be interpreted to stop the sale goods and services that promote a biblical worldview!” and that "the sale of ANY book that states the practice of homosexuality or transgender identification as immoral actions would be illegal in California. …This could include the Bible!”

Uh, no. As we noted, the bill's sponsor says it does not ban the Bible or any other book or speech.

The article then quotes an article from the right-wing site The Federalist that appears to put the lie to the idea that conversion therapy is a legitimate thing at all; in it, the author claims it's all about demonstrating how "Christ can empower people not to engage in homosexual practice or not to identify as ‘gay’ or ‘transgender’ because such behaviors and self-identities are morally wrong" or about "efforts to persuade people of Christ’s power to transform in this area."

That's evangelism, not therapy as recognized by any mental health professional.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:21 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center's Julia Seymour grumbled in a May 14 post:

When a conservative says something crazy, it makes headlines. When a liberal does you can hear the crickets.

Liberal mega-donor Tom Steyer recently entertained comparisons between President Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler at one of his impeachment rallies. But his absurd conversation was not reported by the broadcast networks or major newspapers, according to Nexis. Steyer has spent or pledged at least $236 million to help liberal candidates, or oppose Republicans since the 2014 election cycle.

Only Twitchy and several conservative media outlets took Steyer to task for not pushing back enough when a rally attendee from Iowa asked him, “I just keep thinking, what’s the difference between him and Hitler?”The exchange took place at a May 10, Need to Impeach rally where Steyer was stumping against Trump and Republicans.

Rather than immediately say, WHOA! That’s going way too far, Steyer began with comparisons to Hitler — before reminding everyone of a huge difference: Hitler killed people.

Seymour's headline called the Trump-Hitler comparison "insane."

Seymour even squeezed a second post out of this two days later, claiming that Steyer "is still digging out from under his response to a question about whether President Donald Trump is like 'Hitler.'"

By comparison, when various extremists likened President Obama to Hitler, the MRC never denounced the comparison as insane -- or at all, mostly:

• A 2009 post by Seton Motley was more offended that conservatives were blamed for an Obama-Hitler likening -- it was actually coming from the "leftist" and "Communist" Lyndon LaRouche -- than by the likening itself.
• Another 2009 post by Motley did concede that an Obama-Hitler comparison is "a bit over the top" -- still, far short of "insane" -- then played whataboutism by complaining that a few years earlier a reporter "did not chastise the porter of the giant BusHitler cranium for being so offensively hard on the President.  Quite the contrary; she obviously saw him/her/It as furthering the story she wished to tell."
• Mark Finkelstein played whataboutism in a 2010 post: "Ed Schultz brags that he would have the "courage" to confront anyone putting a Hitler mustache on Barack Obama . . . So what of the innumerable occasions on which George W. was portrayed as a Nazi? Did Ed ever utter a peep of protest?" Finkelstein himself made no peep regarding the appropriateness of the the Obama-Hitler comparison.
• A 2013 post by Scott Whitlock attacked MSNBC's Chris Matthews for having "indignantly objected to a North Carolina state senator comparing ObamaCare to Nazism."

And as we've documented, when conservative country singer Hank Williams Jr. appeared on "Fox & Friends" in 2011 to claim that then-Speaker of the House John Boehner's recent golf game with President Obama was "one of the biggest political mistakes ever," adding, "It's like Hitler playing golf with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu" -- Obama, of course, is the Hitler in that analogy -- the MRC raced to dismiss the comparison as nothing more than "intemperate" and a "bad joke."There was no questioning Williams' sanity as Seymour did Steyer's.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:35 PM EDT

Updated: Thursday, May 24, 2018 9:44 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily has long seen Donald Trump as a figure of Biblical proportions, repeatedly pushing the idea that God himself had a hand in Trump's election as president. But there's another Biblical figure to which WND has likened Trump.

A May 15 WND article highlights how Fox News host Jeanine Pirro "is comparing the president to the biblical King Cyrus," adding: "Cyrus, a Persian king, founded the Achaemenid Empire, conquered Babylon and made history by allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their Temple. The prophet Isaiah wrote of him as an 'anointed one.'"

This is far from the first time WND has likened Trump to Cyrus. Even before the election, an October 2016 article by the notorious Jerome Corsi touted a sermon "sweeping quietly across evangelical America" featuring "a minister asking a simple question: 'Would you have voted for Cyrus the Great?'" The sermon didn't mention Trump but implicitly argued that God would "use a pagan king like Cyrus the Great to advance his glory" like he would purportedly use Trump.

Another pre-election article cited an Israeli rabbi and "international Bible codes expert" who "sees Trump as a leader in the mold of Cyrus the Great of Persia, who helped free the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity in Old Testament times. They were then able to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem."

a September column by WND editor Joseph Farah touted how "Michael Freund, an American-Israeli political activist, pleads with President Donald Trump to follow in the footsteps of Cyrus the Great by fulfilling his campaign promise to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to the nation’s capital, Jerusalem." Farah concluded: "All I can add is this: From Freund’s keyboard to Trump’s heart to God’s ears."

In December, WND promoted a claim that Trump's moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem would help lead to the construction of the third temple, citing the spokeman for a group of organizations working towards making the Third Temple a reality, claiming that "Trump’s role similar to the one played by Cyrus, the Persian king who ended the Babylonian exile and helped build the Second Jewish Temple."

In February, as we previously noted, WND touted a commemorative Trump coin minted by the far-right Israeli rabbinical group the Sanhedrain marking the embassy move, which would also have "an image of the ancient Persian King Cyrus, who was key to the construction of the Second Temple."

An April article highlighted how the Sanhedrin and other groups were making another commemorative coin to fund the construction of the Third Temple. The article stated of the earlier coin: "The Trump-Cyrus coin, which honored two Israeli foreign heroes – one present and one past – came following President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Israel’s capital." The article quoted a spokesman saying, "Hopefully, Trump will continue in this path and, like Cyrus, play a central role in the building of the Temple."

Notice the conflation of moving the embassy to Jerusalem and building the Third Temple. The temple reconstruction on the Temple Mount -- currently home to a mosque -- is something WND has been cheerlead ing for years, though Farah has tried to deny that he supports it because it sets in motion certain End Times prophecies.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:15 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of Donald Trump Jr.'s testimony about a meeting he had with a Russian lawyer and others in June 2016, in which the Trump campaign was reportedly offered Russian-linked intelligence damaging to Hillary Clinton.

CNSNews.com -- ever mindful of its role as a pro-Trump stenographer -- didn't want to report on that. So, instead, its first story on the transcript release focused on a side issue.

"Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson Dined With Russian Lawyer Before & After Her Meeting at Trump Tower" read the headline on the article by Susan Jones, and it did indeed focus on how "Transcripts released Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee say that Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, had dinner with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both the day before and the day after she met with Donald Trump, Jr. at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016."

How desperate is Jones to deflect from Trump Jr.'s actions? Jones admits that "Sen. Dianne Feinstein released the Simpson transcript earlier this year" -- in other words, the main part of her article was based on something that was released months ago, not the newly released transcripts.

The next day, Jones apparently figured out a way to put a positive spin on the transcripts by portraying the meeting as ultimately useless:

Both sides came out of the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower feeling misled and disappointed, transcripts show. So why did it happen and who benefited?

Certainly, that now-famous meeting has been the main exhibit among those politicians and media outlets fanning the Russian "collusion" theory.

Donald Trump Jr. told congressional investigators he agreed to meet with a Russian lawyer, someone unknown to him, when an acquaintance (a British-born producer for a Russian musician) told him "someone had official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary Clinton and her dealings with Russia and that the information would be very useful to the campaign."

[...]

Based on transcripts released Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, both Trump and two of the Russians attending that June 9 Trump Tower meeting later agreed that they were talking past each other.

"All else being equal," Trump Jr. said, "I wouldn't have wanted to waste 20 minutes hearing about something that I wasn't supposed to be meeting about." Asked if he took the meeting to try to get dirt on Clinton, Trump said, "I took the meeting to listen."

Of course, the point of the meeting -- if not ultimately fruitful -- was the Trump Jr. was clearly willing to collude with Russians. Jones didn't report that.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:14 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian's monthly begging-for-money letter to readers kicks off with the usual WND pro-Trump rah-rah:

We are bombarded daily with increasingly bizarre and surreal news reports. Like the outrageously biased Mueller investigation into Trump’s non-existent “Russia collusion.” Like embarrassingly deranged Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters constantly claiming President Trump is mentally incompetent and must be impeached. Like the Washington “swamp” – which includes treacherous, self-serving, never-Trump establishment Republicans – working daily to undermine America’s duly elected president as he tirelessly keeps his promises to revive America’s economy, stop the tidal wave of illegal immigration, protect America from terrorists, and successfully pursue the Reagan policy of “peace through strength” in North Korea, Iran and other potential nuclear powder kegs around the world.

Funny, WND had no problem spending the previous eight years trying to undermine a duly elected president.

Kupelian then went after his media colleagues: "As a veteran journalist, I can say unequivocally that today’s 'mainstream' news establishment is more unprofessional, unprincipled, unhinged, biased, lazy, dishonest, corrupt – and, in some cases, flat-out insane – than at any time during my 35 years as a newsman."

Actually, Kupelian might want to examine his own work first. The mainstream media would have to work extremely hard to be as unprofessional, unprincipled, unhinged, biased, lazy, dishonest and corrupt as WND has been. From massive amounts of fake news to out-and-out lying to its readers to pushing conspiracy theories to becoming pro-Trump state media, Kupelian has a lot to answer for regarding the so-called journalism that nearly drove WND out of business.

Kupelian then went into self-aggrandizement mode, proclaiming that WND "defends, in a professional journalistic way, the Judeo-Christian moral foundation of America," insisting that "our team of experienced, professional journalists strives to do one thing – to tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear" and quoting his boss, Joseph Farah, declaring that WND "operate[s] from an independent truth-seeking drive with a God-centered worldview."

If that were actually true, WND wouldn't be publishing so many falsehoods and so much fake news.

Once again, Kupelian's case that WND deserves to live is undermined by the facts. Not that he'll ever admit that -- he and Farah are simply too dishonest to live up to their own empty, cynical rhetoric.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:19 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

The Media Research Center loves to Heather conservatives who stray from right-wing orthodoxy. It's also not afraid to give the Heathering treatment to its buddies at Fox News. The MRC's Brad Wilmouth complains in a May 7 post:

For a news network that is often caricatured as right wing, Fox News Channel peppered a pro-life guest with an awful lot of questions that were skeptical of Iowa's new law that bans abortion at about six weeks pregnancy.

In fact, Fox and Friends Sunday host Abby Huntsman (a veteran of MSNBC) even cited one poll alleging a majority of Americans want most abortions to be legal, and did not mention that other polling has claimed the opposite.

At 7:25 a.m. Eastern, after recalling that Iowa Republican Governor Kim Reynolds signed the law a few days ago, which bans abortion after a baby's heartbeat can be detected, Huntsman introduced Iowa Republican State Senator Rick Bertrand and immediately brought up a survey suggesting most Americans would oppose such a law:

You know this is one of the most controversial issues that we debate in this country, so, looking at recent polls and survey done on just how the country is feeling about abortion, there's a recent Pew survey that shows that 57 percent of the country supports legal abortion. That's compared to 40 percent who support illegal. So the question off the top is: Is this bill the most -- the strictest bill on abortion -- is this what the American people American people are wanting?

The polling she was referring to was a survey released by the Pew Research Center in June 2017. Not mentioned was that, in May 2017, by contrast, Gallup reported that 54 percent of respondents believe abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances, while 42 percent supported abortion being legal in most or all cases.

For the rest of the interview, the FNC host did not ask a single question that was sympathetic to the effort to protect unborn babies.

Note Wilmouth's dig at Huntsman for having once worked at MSNBC -- pure Heathering at its finest.

And it's particularly hilarious to hear Wilmouth's complaint that Fox News is "caricatured as right wing" when -- in huffing that Huntsman failed to advance the "effort to protect unborn babies" -- he's demanding that it live up to that supposed caricature.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:53 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

CNSNews.com is never so slavishly pro-Trump as when it's clearly following orders from on high -- Terry Jeffrey? Brent Bozell? Sarah Huckabee Sanders? -- to push the Trump White House talking point du jour. For example, we caught them last month in one blatant example, in which it generated two entire agenda-driven articles about a single question during the Mike Pompeo confirmation hearing.

It does the same double-team talking-point drilling again. A May 9 article on Gina Haspel's confirmation hearing for CIA director dutifully repeats a conservative Republican senator's talking point:

During CIA nominee Gina Haspel’s confirmation hearing Wednesday, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) took issue with Sen. Mark Warner’s (D-Va.) assertion that the attorney general’s legal approval of the CIA’s interrogation program was a “get out of jail free card” for Haspel.

Cotton also wondered how many votes Haspel would receive if she were nominated by former President Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton if she had won the election.

“In fact, if you had been nominated by President Obama or if Hillary Clinton had won and nominated you to be CIA director, how many votes do you think you would have gotten to be confirmed as CIA director? You don’t have to answer,” Cotton said.

The next day, Susan Jones penned an article that pushed the same basic talking point from another angle, under the headline "Republican Senator: Democrats Hate Haspel Because Trump Nominated Her":

Sen. Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, was asked by CNN if he could understand Democrats' concerns about interrogation methods used in the past that are now illegal:

"Well, sure," Risch said. "They hate anything that Donald Trump does in this town."

"The people in this town, many of them hate Trump so bad that no matter who he nominates, they're going to raise anything they can. You just hit the nail on the head, and that is that the interrogation had nothing to do with her. They're trying to get her to answer for this one. She was not involved in that," Risch said.

Well done, ladies. You have done the Trump White House a great service. The cause of journalism, however? Not so much.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:37 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Last year, Larry Klayman thanked WorldNetDaily for letting him indulge his many, many conspiracy theories on its website over the years, particularly those involving the Clintons. (He didn't call them that, of course.) He's at it again in his May 11 WND column, complaining that Fox News won't indulge said conspiracy theories and giving him an opportunity to rehash them yet again:

The problem with much of the conservative media, including Fox News, is that the information spewed forth each night is massaged or censored to be politically correct and not to ruffle too many feathers. Unfortunately, the time for niceties has long since passed, as if it were ever a genuine consideration. This explains the popularity – no matter what the rabid leftist media thinks – of our President Donald Trump. The Donald, much like yours truly, does not hold back! Which president in modern American history would call judges who deserve it biased and dishonest, “rip a new one” for the corrupt Justice Department, its Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency for its Deep State uncontrolled spying, not just on the commander in chief but also millions of Americans. Certainly not Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama, all part of the D.C. swamp!

Let me give you just a few examples, among many others, of what I am talking about. 

Back during the early days of Fox News, during the Clinton administration, it was verboten to talk on air about the likely cause of the death of White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster, someone who was very close the first lady Hillary Clinton. Foster was in effect Hillary’s right-hand man and her former partner at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was rumored that Vince was also Hillary’s “main squeeze” during a time when she had not totally turned her attention to the feminine gender, such as with her apparent “significant other,” Huma Abedin.

Again, this is unvarnished politically incorrect speech I am writing! Hillary’s relationship with Abedin is not just idle gossip; it explains much of what went on at the Obama State Department with all its coordinated lies and obstruction, including the tragedy at Benghazi and the resulting cover-up. The then-secretary of state and her top assistant and “loyal” significant other covered for each other. But now back to Vince Foster.

Foster met his end at Fort Marcy Park, and many thought, including the courageous CEOs Joseph Farah of WND and Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax, both my friends and colleagues, that his death was no accident. Nor was it believed to be a suicide. How Foster died was important to explain many of the Clinton scandals, including IRS-gate, Filegate and Travelgate, including the hard fact that scores of material witnesses died during the Clinton years. According to testimony in oral depositions I took of Linda Tripp and others, they believed that Foster was the one mildly ethical person in the Clinton White House. Yet, he was also the person who, given his rumored affair with Hillary, also covered for her, much like Abedin today. He thus knew where all of the bodies were buried, figuratively and perhaps actually.

And, for good measure, he rehashed a couple Obama conspiracy theories:

The same logic applies to our former “Muslim in chief,” Barack Hussein Obama. That this president was half Muslim, and fully Muslim under Shariah law, among tens of other indicia of his Islamic loyalties, helps explain his antipathy toward Jews and Israel, much less Christians, and many other pro-Islamic acts as president, including his now Trump-trashed Iranian nuclear deal. Again, Fox News barred its broadcasters from ever mentioning Obama’s Muslim roots.

And, then there was the legitimate issue of Obama’s place of birth and fraudulent birth certificate, discussion of which was also largely banned at Fox News.

Notice that he never bothers to offer any legitimate proof that any of this is true. All that matters to him is pushing the conspiracies to keep his dwindling readership riled up.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:58 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

We've already noted how WorldNetDaily is distorting the facts around AB 2943, the proposed California bill that would ban effectively ban anti-gay conversion therapy in the state. Nnow, the Media Research Center has joined the party with a May 8 MRC Latino piece by Morela Scull, which repeats only anti-gay sources in attacking the bill. For instance, the gay-bashers at the Alliance Defending Freedom:

In an interview with the MRC, attorney Matt Sharp from the Alliance Defending Freedom explained that “AB 2943 infringes upon the First Amendment right of counselors, religious organizations and so many others to speak freely on the ability of people to find hope and to explore all options as it relates to their sexual orientation and gender identity. This bill, if passed, would restrict that freedom of speech, telling people that certain viewpoints like the idea that people can change is now off limits and declared fraudulent in the state of California.”

Sharp added that “the idea that people can change and find true joy in embracing and living out their faith is at the heart of many religions. California should not be telling people that such faith is fraudulent”.

Actually, what's fraudulent is conversion therapy -- which is the whole issue. You generally don't have the right n America to peddle fraudulent things. Sharp is not quoted as explaining how a fraudulent process furthers the "true joy" of religion, and Scull offers no evidence to bolster the implication she's peddling that conversion therapy is safe and effective.

Scull also plays the First Amendment card, quoting someone named "René Scull, from the free-market champion Atlas Network" (Morela Scull does not disclose what her connection is, if any, to this person with whom she shares a last name, though she really should have), asserting that “it is absurd to try to interfere with the commercialization of goods related with ideological postures or postures against social attitudes because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Violating the rules of the market converts these measures that are trying to be implemented in something not only illegal, but also interferes with a healthy process of supply and demand.”

Again, this misses the point. Conversion therapy has been largely proven to be ineffective and even damaging to clients. There is no First Amendment right to provide an ineffective and damaging service, regardless of the processes of supply and demand. It's also not a restriction on religious liberty to stop a fraudulent practice.

Scull concluded by huffing: "The ramifications of the legislation go far beyond considerations about being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender; or about being a Christian or an atheist: it is mainly about the prohibition of freedom." No, it's pretty much limited to the former; people like Scull and the people she quotes don't believe being "homosexual, bisexual or transgender" deserves any consideration and that it should be stamped out. And that's where the real rights issue resides.

Posted by Terry K. at 12:30 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

You may remember WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown is an anti-gay, anti-transgender activist who pretends to have compassion for them while simultaneously mocking them. Well, he's at it again in his May 7 column, portraying self-proclaimed ex-gays as "the smallest, most rejected minority in our country":

Their numbers are very small, since they came out of a small community to start with. And it is only a small percentage of that small group who make a break with the rest of the LGBT community.

Most of them make that break because of their religious faith, often newly found. Others make the break simply because they no longer want to identify as gay or bi or trans. But for making that break, they pay a steep price.

They are mocked and maligned and bullied by the community they once called home.

They are told they do not exist. They are assured they will fail. Their motives are questioned. They are called liars and mercenaries. They are even mocked for being so small in number (even if they number in the thousands or tens of thousands, that represents the tiniest slice of the population).

All this simply because they want to lead a new life, because they do not embrace their same-sex attractions (or their gender confusion.)

Shouldn’t they be applauded for their courage? Shouldn’t they be lauded for doing what they feel is right?

Really now, what can possibly be wrong with a man wanting to be married to a woman, having natural children of his own? Why on earth should he be penalized for that?

What can possibly be wrong with a woman wanting to be at home in her own body? Why on earth should she be criticized for that?

And why is it that we put ex-gays and ex-trans individuals under such intense pressure? If they have one slip-up, they’re called phonies. If they still struggle with attractions or gender confusion, they are told they haven’t changed. But why?

Brown then demonstrates how little he understands about sexuality by likening being gay to alcoholism and addiction to pornography: "There are plenty of former alcoholics who fell off the wagon for a season, only to get back on track. Do we ridicule them, or empathize with them and show them compassion? Many of them identify as recovering alcoholics. Why can’t someone identify as a recovering homosexual?

Brown then goes on to reveal his real reason for embracing ex-gays -- because they show that sexual preferences aren't immutable: "That’s why those who say, 'I used to be gay, but I’m free today' must be maligned. Their existence must be denied. Their ultimate failure must be assured. If change is possible – again, through divine intervention or through counseling or both – then the whole push for 'LGBT rights' can be questioned."

Which, of course, is the fallacy in Brown's activism -- he seems to not understand that people have the right to be who they are sexually. His implication is that if you can stop being gay, then you must stop being gay. He offers no evidence to support his claim that people who are gay are somehow not "free."

Brown laments that "the great majority of those who came out of homosexual practice and transgender identification simply want to live their lives," but he doesn't understand that the LGBT community want to do the same thing. He cares only that his version of Christianity gets imposed on everyone whether or not it violates their rights to live as they desire.

He concludes by doing more false likening of "homosexual behavior" -- a term that denies the existence of sexual orientation -- this time to lying, adultery and theft. That tells you how little regard he really has for people who live differently from him.

Posted by Terry K. at 6:19 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink