Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

WHY WOULD CNN LIGHTEN THE SKIN COLOR OF THE WAUKESHA CHRISTMAS PARADE KILLER?

From The Gateway Pundit:

Brooks is a black racist, a Trump-hater, an anti-white radical who barreled through a Christmas Parade on Sunday in Waukesha, Wisconsin.  CNN posted his photo on their website following his arraignment.  They lightened his skin.

Why would they do that?  Any guesses?

TWO MINUTES ON THE MUELLER REPORT AND SOME PREDICTIONS

If your time is short, listen to the  2:52 - 4:32 segment of Joseph DiGenova's take on the Mueller report.

If you have a little more time, you will want to hear DiGenova boldly predict trouble ahead for the government conspirators against Trump.  I am sure a particular Trump-despising friend of mine will fume and fuss and maybe explode at the very thought that there could be trouble ahead, but that of course, would be to prejudge the future.   We must wait and see. 

Former CIA director John Brennan made numerous calamitous predictions that Trump would be found guilty of "Russian collusion" which kept the Left wing media excited, but which fizzled and bombed and thoroughly discredited Brennan as a commentator and prognosticator.  

Now former United States Attorney, District of Columbia, Joseph DiGenova has mounted the stage and has offered predictions of his own.  (Predictions begin around the 11:02 mark.)  Let's see what the future brings.  My bet is that his predictions concerning Brennan, Comey, Struck, and McCabe will turn out eerily accurate and come as a bombshell to the Leftist media.  And if it can be demonstrated, as DiGenova is convinced, that former President Barack Obama was in on the plot to discredit and remove Trump from the beginning, the Left wing media will need to crank up its spin machine to a level it has  never been cranked up to before.

Update 4/23/19:  I sent an email version of this blog post to a friend who replied affirmatively: 

Trump and his campaign WERE bugged by the FBI during the campaign. Based on standard procedures, this could not have been done without Obama’s knowledge. So it is fair to say that Obama was part of the plot, if not central to it. It was a concerted attempt by a sitting president and his justice department and FBI to prevent the election of Donald Trump and, after he was elected, to subvert and overthrow his presidency. That is the very definition of treason.

NORTH KOREAN DICTATOR KIM JONG UN THE SAME HEIGHT AS PRESIDENT TRUMP?

The strange photo below was posted on Breitbart.  It strikes me as laughably distorted.  Kim Jong Un has been made to look as tall as President Trump.  See the video below for a true perspective of their relative heights.

 

 

 

COCA-COLA ADVERTISEMENTS

These historical advertisements should warn us to be a tad skeptical about contemporary ads (of whatever sort...)

And not this from the "Cola Industry!"

 

SOME NEWS ITEMS NOTED TODAY

Each of the following articles are well worth reading:

   -- Vice-President Mike Pence on Prayer in the White House

   -- Dr. Robert Epstein - Google has power to flip elections in a way that can't be traced

   -- Survey - 88% of Harvard Faculty say President Trump has done a very poor job in his first year and a quarter as President  

    -- Jamie Glazov suspended from Twitter for quoting  Islamic religious texts

   -- Islam in France: troubles Macron chooses to ignore 

Macron's Washington speech, as it happened, came only days after the release of the most comprehensive study yet of Islam in France. Co-sponsored by the Sorbonne, it concluded that the country's second- and third-generation Muslims, who make up seven or eight percent of its population, are increasingly Islamized. Most have no respect for French law and culture; most approve of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Researcher Olivier Galland said his results were, “to put it mildly, harrowing” – reflective of community values in stark contrast with those of "la belle Republique. "

DENNIS PRAGER EXPLAINS HOW THE PRESS SMEARS CONSERVATIVES

You have probably heard that Dennis Prager, a prominent conservative author, columnist, and talk show host, recently conducted the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra but not without hysteria generated by a few left wing musicians and the smearing of Prager by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and NPR.

I suggest carefully reading carefully Prager's dissection of the tactics employed by these news outlets in smearing him since it is a microcosm of the slanted news that pervades the country every day.  Prager titles his analysis "How the Mainstream Media Operate: A Case study in how the media conducts its war against conservatives."

Here are a few of his points:

Lesson No. 1: When the mainstream media write or say that a conservative "suggested" something that sounds outrageous, it usually means the conservative never actually said it.

Lesson No. 2: When used by the mainstream media, the words "divisive" or "contentious" simply mean "leftists disagree with."

Lesson No. 3: Contrary evidence is omitted.

Lesson No. 4: Subjects are covered in line with left-wing ideology.

Be sure to read the whole article.   One needs to be informed and fortified to detect the bias that is everywhere.

STUDIES ARE USUALLY BUNK, STUDY SHOWS

Andy Kessler writes, "Hands down, the two most dangerous words in the English language today are 'studies show.'  I totally agree.  

Kessler goes on:

Many of the studies quoted in newspaper articles and pop-psychology books are one-offs anyway.  In August 2015, the Center for Open Science published a study in which 270 researchers spent four years trying to reproduce 100 leading psychology experiments.  They successfully replicated only 39.   Yes, I see the irony of a study debunking a study, but add to this a Nature survey of 1,576 scientists published last year.  'More than 70% of reserachers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments,' the survey report concludes.  "And more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments."  

More:  "It's easy to write this off as trivial, except millions take these studies and their conclusions seriously."   

I like Kessler's conclusions:  "These studies show whatever someone wants them to.  So stay skeptical ..."   Yes!

CHRIS WALLACE INTERVIEWS TRUMP LAWYER JAY SEKULOW

Has Chris Wallace ever gotten more vigorous and effective push back than he received from Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice?  Watch:

 

SHANNON BREAM - MY CHOICE TO REPLACE MEGYN KELLY AT FOX NEWS

I've always considered Shannon Bream quick, articulate, and an exceptionally talented news person at Fox.   Yesterday I learned she is a 1993 graduate of Liberty University.  Her walk with the Lord is upfront and full of vitality.  Here she is delivering the 2013 commencement address at Liberty University.

Update: It was announced today that Tucker Carlson will replace Megyn Kelly at the 9:00 PM program and Martha MacCallum will replace Tucker Carlson at his 7:00 PM slot.  Both are good people! 

HOLLYWOOD IS EMPLOYING A NEW TECHNIQUE TO INCREASE THE BOTTOM LINE: CONNECT WITH CHURCHES

It has taken Hollywood a long time to seriously gear up to tap into the vast potentially lucrative Christian marketplace.  Brooks Barnes recently penned an eye-opening article describing how such efforts have now taken on more energy than ever before. He writes in "Secular Hollywood Quietly Courts the Faithful":

On the surface, Hollywood is a land of loose morals, where materialism rules, sex and drugs are celebrated on screen (and off), and power players can have a distant relationship with the truth. But movie studios and their partners have quietly — very quietly, sometimes to the degree of a black ops endeavor — been building deep connections to Christian filmgoers who dwell elsewhere on the spectrum of politics and social values. In doing so, they have tapped churches, military groups, right-leaning bloggers and, particularly, a fraternity of marketing specialists who cut their teeth on overtly religious movies but now put their influence behind mainstream works like “Frozen,” “The Conjuring,” “Sully” and “Hidden Figures.”  

The marketers are writing bullet points for sermons, providing footage for television screens mounted in sanctuaries and proposing Sunday school lesson plans. In some cases, studios are even flying actors, costume designers and producers to megachurch discussion groups.

I found it a fascinating article, filled with marketing details and personalities new to me.  As I read I began to wonder, might these developments be a sign that God is beginning to answer many people's prayers for Hollywood to change its direction and offer uplifting and morally challenging films on a more regular basis?    One can hope -- and continue to pray.  Read the whole thing.

QUICK TAKES

From the Drudge Report:

-- Millennials looking to fix overpiercing, remove tattoos...

-- Pakistan airline mocked for goat sacrifice...

-- Title IX is “bureaucratic sex creep” gone wild

-- Hopeless Afghan struggle to save boy sex slaves...

From other sorces:

-- New York Times staff less diverse than Trump’s cabinet

-- IN PICTURES: WHAT AN ISLAMIC SUICIDE BOMBING LOOKS LIKE

CAN WE TRUST SCIENTIFIC "STUDIES"? NO!

Corruption has now invaded and invalidated much of the sacred precincts of "science."  As Pascal Emmanuel Gobry writes in his article, Big Science is Broken:

Science is broken.

That's the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.  [more. . .]   

Me: This is a "Must Read" article...

MEDIA CORRUPTION ON ABORTION COVERAGE

  **  Mollie Hemingway - Media Censors Forensic Analysis Showing Planned Parenthood Videos Not Deceptively Edited  - Important article!

 

  **  Susan Michelle - Women will have more healthcare access if Planned Parenthood is defunded    - See the visuals proving the point!

 

  **  Watch the viral video exposing Planned Parenthood false mammogram claims

MEDIA FAILS TO REPORT PAUL EHRLICH'S LAUGHABLE TRACK RECORD AS FORECASTER OF DOOM AND GLOOM

One has solid grounds to  wonder at the selectivity and inadequacy of current news reporting.  Those who remember the previous "science" predictions of Paul Ehrlich may be pardoned for being skeptical of his latest dire warnings.   Wesley J. Smith writes:

You may have read in the media that humans are causing a sixth mass extinction on the planet.

You may also have noted that one of the sources of the claim is Paul Ehrlich -- author of the hysterically wrong "The Population Bomb."

But for the most part the articles that have reported on the paper by Ehrlich and Anthony Barnosky (in Science Advances) do not mention that infamous book or Ehrlich's history of hyperbolic ecological fear mongering. Instead they simply identify Ehrlich as a Stanford University professor and president of the Center for Conservation Biology. That's misleading by omission.

Here's one news reports, for example, that merely refers to him as a professor.From the story in the Telegraph:

Scientists at Stanford University in the US claim it is the biggest loss of species since the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. "Without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event," said Professor Paul Ehrlich, at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

Putting it that way creates an illusion that Ehrlich would write an objective study. But Ehrlich is less a scientist than he is an ideologue who for decades has made a good living by preaching doom and gloom. His prognostications are almost always wrong.

The Telegraph's Tim Chivers penned a valuable column a few years ago outlining some of the assertions Ehrlich made in his book that turned out to be panicked rather than prophetic. From the column:

So, let's take a look at some of his predictions, made in 1968:

1) "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate," he said. He predicted four billion deaths, including 65 million Americans...

What actually happened: Since Ehrlich wrote, the population has more than doubled to seven billion -- but the amount of food per head has gone up by more than 25 per cent. Of course there are famines, but the death rate has gone down. I don't think a significant number of Americans have starved....

FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA CHAMPIONED BY MEGYN KELLY, ALAN DERSHOWITZ, RICH LOWRY

Great commentaries - 

 

DERSHOWITZ: Everything that the critics of what Geller has said could be said about Martin Luther King. Now, I don’t want to make any comparisons between the two of them morally or legally. But from a Constitutional law point of view, there’s no difference. Martin Luther King picked some of the cities he went to precisely in order to provoke and bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are so the world could see what was wrong with Jim Crow. It’s part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see.  [Not my bolding]

IS MATT DRUDGE'S INFLUENCE SECOND ONLY TO THAT OF THE PRESIDENT?

Brent Budowsky, a columnist for "The Hill," says the Drudge Report "determines the content of debate in our national discourse on an hourly basis."  I  agree.  I read the Drudge Report several times a day, as do millions of others.  If you listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, it seems to me he gets a substantial percentage of his topics from the Drudge Report.  But so do liberal outlets.  Budowsky writes:

While as a liberal, I do not suggest the following with a great deal of pleasure, but Matt Drudge is by far the single most influential person in the American media, and it is fair to ask: Is he the second most influential man in America?

For more than any individual in the media, Drudge dominates his competitors to the degree that he has no competitors, and determines what you watch on television, what you read in newspapers, what you hear and radio, and even what you read on the Internet about politics more than any single person in American history.

MSNBC may claim it is liberal and Fox News may be the house organ for conservatives, but if you turn on either in the morning, you will often see the guiding hand of Drudge. The New York Times may consider itself the finest newspaper in the world, but while one of the Times' political reporters is reduced to writing ditties complaining that Hillary Clinton does not answer her questions, one entry on the Drudge Report can trigger 100 questions to any politician in America. Network anchors come and go, but Drudge remains, the omnipresent force who is required reading for political editors, television producers and campaign managers from all parties.

"RIGHT WING WATCH" A SOROS-FUNDED WEBSITE THAT LIES TO FURTHER THE LEFTIST AGENDA

Tony Perkins writes in "A Site for Soros Lies" - 

If you think the media uses credible and honest sources to report the news, think again. You'd be surprised at how many "mainstream" outlets rely on a left-wing advocacy organization funded in part by liberal billionaire George Soros. The organization is called RightWingWatch and tracks the statements of conservative politicians and leaders for the sole purpose of feeding distorted -- and sometimes even fabricated -- versions to their allies in the media.

Now, it's no surprise that press who are outright hostile to conservative views like Huffington Post rely on RightWingWatch's propaganda, but it is shocking that that this kind of truth-optional reporting is utilized (and therefore legitimized) by mainstream networks like CBS, Politico, and others.

QUESTIONS FOR INDIANA'S CRITICS: (OR, WHAT WILL THE FUTURE OF THE INGRAINING OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN AMERICA LOOK LIKE?)

Ross Douthat poses serious questions for "Progressives" to answer given their vision of ingraining homosexuality in America to the extent of legislating against any opposing views.  He asks:

1) Should religious colleges whose rules or honor codes or covenants explicitly ask students and/or teachers to refrain from sex outside of heterosexual wedlock eventually lose their accreditation unless they change the policy to accommodate gay relationships? At the very least, should they lose their tax-exempt status, as Bob Jones University did over its ban on interracial dating?

2) What about the status of religious colleges and schools or non-profits that don’t have such official rules about student or teacher conduct, but nonetheless somehow instantiate or at least nod to a traditional view of marriage at some level — in the content of their curricula, the design of their benefit package, the rules for their wedding venues, their denominational affiliation? Should their tax-exempt status be reconsidered? Absent a change in their respective faith’s stance on homosexuality, for instance, should Catholic high schools or Classical Christian academies or Orthodox Jewish schools be eligible for 501(c)3 status at all?

3) Have the various colleges and universities that have done so been correct to withdraw recognition from religious student groups that require their leaders to be chaste until (heterosexual) marriage? Should all of secular higher education take the same approach to religious conservatives? And then further, irrespective of leadership policies, do religious bodies that publicly endorse a traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic view of sexual ethics deserve a place on secular campuses at all? Should the Harvard chaplaincy, for instance, admit ministers to its ranks whose churches or faiths do not allow them to perform same-sex marriages? Should the chaplaincy of a public university?

THE LIBERAL AGENDA IS BASED ON FAKE NEWS

A huge need exists to wise up to leftist lies and propaganda.  Rush Limbaugh correctly states:  "The Liberal Agenda is Based on Fake News."   

RUSH: "Hands up, don't shoot" did not happen. There were no rapes by frat houses and frat boys at the University of Virginia. Lena Dunham cannot prove that she was raped by a conservative at Oberlin College where she reputedly attended. The Duke lacrosse case was totally manufactured and made up. It did not happen. And on and on and on. Eric Garner in New York was not killed by a cop chokehold. He died of a heart attack on the way to the hospital. But never mind.

There is no discrimination against homosexuals in Indiana. All of this is drummed up and fake. Every one of these stories is fake. And when they are exposed as fake, such as the Rolling Stone University of Virginia rape story, when they are exposed as fake, how does the journalist responsible for the fakery and his or her accomplices in the rest of the Drive-By Media respond?

They say, "It may be, it may be fake. But it doesn't matter because we know it's happening elsewhere. We know rape is happening all over this country campus after campus after campus. It may not have happened there, it may not have happened in this case at the University of Virginia. But we know it's happening, and we have raised everybody's consciousness level about it, and so it was good."

And once again we're drawn back to the nature of the evidence when it comes to liberalism, irrelevant. The seriousness of the charge. In this case, the seriousness of the charge is that men are raping women on college campuses all the time, every day, and it's gotten out of hand. Another fake premise is that white cops are murdering and executing innocent black children every day in America. It's gotten out of hand. We gotta stop it. But it doesn't happen, and it hasn't happened.

And now we are off on another totally manufactured, made-up, fake story that there is rampant, wanton, Christian discrimination against loving homosexuals all over Indiana. It isn't true. You've heard about the story. The local TV affiliate, the ABC Eyewitness News affiliate walks into a pizza store 30 minutes south of Indianapolis. They just walk in. There's no reason. The store hasn't made any news. Nobody inside the store said anything. The media is going door-to-door. . . .  

They are shopping and hoping to find what they claim is discrimination and bigotry. So they walk into this pizza store after failing to find a business that meet their needs. They're just going door-to-door and they walk in, they finally find a naive woman who admits, "No, we wouldn't cater a gay wedding because of our Christian views." Never mind they never have, they've never been asked to, they've never said no, they've never refused to cater. It was totally made up, but that's not the story. The media's making it the story, but it's what happens after the Drive-By Media person goes into the business and concocts this fake story. It's what happens afterwards that is really fake.

Incidentally, regarding the pizza store that could not reopen and received numerous death threats (Memories Pizza), Dana Loesch conducted an interview and invited donations at GoFundMe.   As of 10:00 PM on April 2, 2015 over 13,000 people had contributed a total of over $395,000.  I am sure I will need to update that figure.

HUCKABEE ON INDIANA LAW: "THIS IS A MANUFACTURED CRISIS BY THE LEFT"

 

Huckabee:  "I'm watching these major corporations fold up like a cheap tent in a wind storm and it breaks my heart to see it. . .   I was in China last year, I was governor of Arkansas 10 and a half years; the people --  including the CEO of WalMart -- who said Arkansas shouldn't pass this law,  I'm wondering: I know Arkansas very well, and I know China a little bit.  WalMart does a lot of business in China and there is a lot more discrimination going on in Arkansas than there is in Arkansas."

**

Miscellaneous quotes:

Ed Whelan - H.L. Mencken famously defined puritanism as the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Progressivism, it seems, should be defined as the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be making a decision you disapprove of—and the fervent use of government power to prevent and punish such a decision.”

Peter Steinfels - The whole point of freedom of religion is that it protects an extraordinary gamut of differing, frequently conflicting cosmologies, spiritual disciplines, and moral codes.  They may include refusing to fight in defense of the nation, rejecting certain foodstuffs or medical treatments, discouraging young people from secondary or higher education, honoring celibacy or condemning a variety of sexual practices, sacrificing animals, drinking alcohol, or ingesting hallucinogens for ritual purposes, prescribing certain head coverings or hairstyles despite school or occupational rules, insisting on distinct roles for men and women, withdrawing from friends and family for lives of silence and seclusion, marching in prayer through neighborhoods on holy days, preaching on street corners or otherwise trying to convert others to these persuasions. 

CUT HIS MIC OFF

Via Kathryn Jean Lopez who observes:  "A perfectly reasonable argument, shut down. This is where we are? This is where we want to be?"

 

Me:  Ryan Anderson isn't given a chance to complete his thought.  Since Anderson is the most articulate spokesperson who knows the law and knows the threat to religious freedom, I guess we shouldn't be surprised he would be cut off.   What's surprising is that MSNBC had him on in the first place.

- National Review Online offers an editorial:  "Liberals Against Religious Liberty in Indiana"  

- Andrew T. Walker - "Indiana's RFRA: Eight Theses"   Excellent overview and summation

Update: Ed Schultz brought Ryan Anderson back on his program, but Schultz still wouldn't allow Anderson to finish his thoughts and accused Anderson of not being capable of having a civil discussion.  Wow...   The truth is that Anderson is terrific.   Who is Ryan Anderson?  Click here or click "continue reading" below

 

- Good Q&A with Anderson on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. - This is a MUST READ.  I may put it up on a separate blog post.  Click here.

- On the Daily Signal Ryan Anderson talks about getting cut off by Ed. Schultz:

 

GEORGE WILL'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE INDIANA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BROUHAHA

 

Will offers sensible observations:

“There is nothing more tiresome in modern American life,” says columnist George Will, “than the indignation sweepstakes we get in all the time to see who can be most angry about this and that.” And the sweepstakes are on in Indiana. Responding to the outrage surrounding the Hoosier State’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Will noted on Tuesday’s Special Report, “Tim Cook, CEO of Apple thinks Indiana is a horrible place. He opened marketing and retailing operations in Saudi Arabia two months before a man was sentenced to 450 lashes for being gay. The selective indignation is itself wonderful. “There are obviously two important principles at stake here,” Will continued. “One is, the government should rarely, and only with extreme difficulty, compel people to take actions contrary to their consciences. The other is that when you open your doors to commerce you open them to everybody. That’s a simple thing. It goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the public accommodations section, which is surely a great moment in American history. You can work this out, but the indignation isn’t helping.”

WHY DO THE MEDIA REFER TO "THE PROPHET MOHAMMED"?

Ian Tuttle has some thoughts.  So do I.  The media's practice of referring to Mohammed as "The Prophet" demonstrates singular deference, a dhimmitude stance, towards Islam.  While the supposedly "secular west" mocks and pillories Christians and Christianity, it tiptoes with exaggerated respect towards Islam no matter how violent and murderous its deeds.  Astonishingly, the media refuses to examine authoritative Muslim texts to examine the underpnnings of Muslim savagery.  See the expositions of Andrew C. McCArthy, or Muslim cleric Anjem Chaudary himself.

SHARYL ATKISSON BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON CBS

The corrupt CBS News gets exposed by ex-investigator reporter Sharyl Atkisson in her new book, Stonewalled, an overview of which can be read here.  If you read the article, your anger will rise and your respect for major news organizations like CBS will fall.  Unless, of course, you approve the suppression of news, think cover-ups are fine, and regard news-managed propaganda to shore up your ideological bias perfectly acceptable.

Krauthammer: ‘Rank Ignorance’ Pervasive in Media Covering Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

 

From the Washington Free Beacon:

Columnist Charles Krauthammer condemned what he called “rank ignorance” among U.S. media outlets that have harshly covered Israel as the Jewish state has battled the terrorist group Hamas this month.

On Thursday night’s Hannity, host Sean Hannity said he was dumbstruck by how people were treating the conflict, given Israel’s status as the Middle East’s lone true democracy, as well as that Hamas started the conflict, disregards Israel’s right to exist and fires rockets at civilians.

Yet media coverage has consistently focused on the deaths of Palestinian civilians during Operation Protective Edge, with many outlets ignoring the fact that Hamas has used hospitals and schools as weapons depots and employs civilians as human shields in order to garner positive press coverage when they’re killed or injured. Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer was so incensed on the subject, he called out CNN’s coverage for not providing context during an interview on OutFront Thursday.

Krauthammer said anti-Semitism is partly to blame for the world’s skewed view of Israel, but it also comes down to just not understanding history of the conflict.

“The more prevalent one among the American media is simple rank ignorance,” Krauthammer said. “They don’t know the story. They don’t know what Israel offered Gaza, what it offered the West Bank. Do you ever hear anybody report that when Israel left Gaza nine years ago unilaterally, at the same time it dismantled four settlements in the West Bank? That was a signal from Ariel Sharon that he wanted to eventually leave all the territories and live in peace with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. But you never hear that.”

WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL?

Daniel Pipes has a post titled, "The Media Like Pretending Tel Aviv is the Capital of Israel."  Pipes writes:

Some, especially in the mainstream media, pretend that not Tel Aviv, rather than Jerusalem, serves as the capital of Israel. (Tel Aviv hosts the Ministry of Defense but not much else of the central government.) This parallels a tendency lately to pretend there’s a country called Palestine. Some of those delusions, which are appearing more often, in reverse chronological order:

Agence France Press: An article on January 23, “Israel PM urges European ‘fairness’ in Mideast,” states that four European Union states lodged “a formal protest against Tel Aviv’s drive to expand settlements on the West Bank.” (January 26, 2014)

The New York Times: A front-page headline today over a story by Mark Landler and Jodi Rudoren uses “Tel Aviv” as a synonym for Israel’s capital: “Mideast Chaos Grows as U.S. Focuses on Israel—Kerry’s Tel Aviv Push Raises Questions About Priorities.” (July 2, 2013)

CTV, a Canadian television station: The network reported on January 8 that “Tel Aviv is dealing with a heavy rain situation. The storms flooded roads and brought chaos to the Israeli capital.” (January 17, 2013)

BBC: A tweet from the news organization today announced that “#Gaza militants launch missiles at Tel Aviv in First rocket attack on Israeli capital since 1991 Gulf War bbc.in/QJkWK9” (November 15, 2012)

ASSESSING THE DUCK DYNASTY CONTROVERSY

Bill Muehlenberg doesn't mince words in his column, "A Culture of Bullying and Intolerance."

We now know without the slightest doubt that the homosexual militants are a pack of bullies who thrive on intimidation, stand-over tactics, and thuggery. And they are clearly one of the most intolerant groups on the planet. They have declared war on every single person on earth who refuses to bow down before their agenda.

They have perfected the art of bullying, belligerency and brow-beating, and all opposition will face the wrath of the pink mafia. The examples of these are of course legion, with the most recent battle fought over a few guys who make duck calls for a living and happen to be forthright about their Christian faith.

For having the audacity to actually proclaim in public what the Bible says about the issue of homosexuality, all hell has broken loose, with the A&E network suspending Phil Robertson from his own show a few weeks ago. A storm of protest rightly erupted over this nasty bit of intolerance, and the network was forced to back down.

It all serves as yet another clear illustration of the culture of intolerance and bullying which has sprung up all over the West, primarily at the hands of the militant homosexual lobby. They think they own the world, and can push their agenda with impunity, and smash all dissent along the way.

But the public outrage at the homonazis in general, and the activist groups like GLAAD in particular (which launched this assault on Duck Dynasty), shows that for every action there is a reaction, and most folks in America at least have had a gutful of these bullies trying to coerce everyone else to embrace their perverted agenda.

MEDIA COVERAGE OF GOVERNMENT SOCIAL PROGRAMS INVARIABLY POSITIVE

Always at the beginning, with no follow-up later.  Jason Richwine spells it out:

Skeptics of government social programs have long been frustrated by a familiar pattern of media coverage. It starts with a new social program portrayed as the key to fixing problems like poverty or low test scores. The media proceed to either ignore the long history of similar initiatives found to have little effect, or they acknowledge the history but report that this program is fundamentally different from everything that has come before.

Either way, the media trumpet the positive results from early evaluations of the program, even when those results are based on small samples, short time horizons, non-experimental data, or all of the above. Years later, researchers find that a randomized experiment shows that the program has no effect, or that the effects quickly fade, or that the effects cannot be replicated on a larger scale. These findings are quietly reported in a technical article, with no fanfare and little public attention. By that time, the media have already moved on to promoting another new social program.

QUICK TAKES

   ** Andrew C. McCarthy - The Scheme behind the Obamacare Fraud (Extremely important - McCarthy maps out Obama's "grand plan")

   ** Former Secret Service Agent Bonino: Holder Justice Dept is a "Travesty"   It's totally politicized.  Very scary.  (HT: Drudge)

   ** William Kristol - Israel Will Fight   Crunch time approaches.  Kristol thinks Israel will fight.   (HT: Drudge)

   ** - Lowry: Revisionist History of JFK Assassination ‘More Useful Politically’ to Democrats (Video) How is it that the "right wing" is blamed for a murder committed by a Communist?

  ** - Fund: Nuclear Option ‘Expands the Pool of What Kind of Radical Liberals’ Obama Can Nominate (Video)

And yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.

Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf

And yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.

Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf

And yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.

Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf

nd yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.

Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf

nd yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.

Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf

nd yet the advertisers on MSNBC are all major corporate sponsors — as opposed to the advertisers on Fox News, which in large part are smaller businesses, despite the channel's high ratings.

Leftist garbage is saleable and acceptable in a world dominated by conservatives who refuse to fight back. The media portray Fox News and MSNBC as mirror images of one another, but that's clearly false — the lineup of Fox News has nothing like the disgusting material regularly emanating from MSNBC. But Fox News is the channel regularly subjected to boycotts. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/leftist-garbage-msnbc#sthash.AQdfqajB.dpuf

THE NEW YORK TIMES SERVES AS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS "PRAVDA"

Brent Bozell titles his important  piece, "Neglect at the New York Times."  It deserves a stronger title, since what Bozell exposes is the Pravda-like behavior of the most influential newspaper in the United States.  Bozell writes:  (HT: Drudge - my bolding)

After a long three-year gap since their last exclusive sit-down interview with President Obama, you might think The New York Times would be ready to ask tough questions on the most contentious issues of the day, beginning with the deepening Obama scandals.

Wrong. Instead, the Times defined the "news" in this interview to be Obama's counter-attacks. Their stories focused on Obama's accusations that (a) the Republicans are liars about Obamacare, (b) the Republicans exaggerate the benefits of building the Keystone XL pipeline and (c) the Republicans oppose his use of executive power because he has the "gall to win the presidency."

The national media are faithfully executing their Obama second-term call to preserve and protect his legacy. They are steering clear of any story that might imply that the president has in any way cut an ethical corner or abused his power. More: House Republicans investigating Obama scandals must be viewed as an assembly line for organized character assassination, not congressional oversight.

This is especially true at the Times, which sees the president as a far too special historical figure to get the punishing scrutiny applied to people the Times thinks are slack-jawed country bumpkins, such as Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. They see Obama as a Jackie Robinson figure, a racial pioneer who endures the angry, spitting fury of the right-wing mobs with great courage and flair.

The tea party apparently deserves punishing investigations by the IRS because their opposition to Obama is clearly based on racism, just like the people who spat on Jackie Robinson. In his interview with the Times, when asked about over-enthusiastic use of executive power, Obama sneered at conservatives. "Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret." He added: "But ultimately, I'm not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers."

Instead of asking one solitary question about scandals, the Times decided it was more important to ask the most obvious question imaginable about Martin Luther King: "March on Washington coming up soon.

Are you going to do anything to mark it? Are you planning on being a part of the 50th anniversary?" Why, yes, Obama stressed: "I have a copy of the original program in my office, framed."   . . .

. . . just as the Times tried to move mountains to ruin President Bush, they are also rabidly partisan in seeing themselves as life preservers for Democrats. Why anyone would see this as a "prestige" newspaper while its news coverage careens wildly from abuse to neglect is a mystery.  [Read the whole article]

After a long three-year gap since their last exclusive sit-down interview with President Obama, you might think The New York Times would be ready to ask tough questions on the most contentious issues of the day, beginning with the deepening Obama scandals.

Wrong. Instead, the Times defined the "news" in this interview to be Obama's counter-attacks. Their stories focused on Obama's accusations that (a) the Republicans are liars about Obamacare, (b) the Republicans exaggerate the benefits of building the Keystone XL pipeline and (c) the Republicans oppose his use of executive power because he has the "gall to win the presidency."

The national media are faithfully executing their Obama second-term call to preserve and protect his legacy. They are steering clear of any story that might imply that the president has in any way cut an ethical corner or abused his power. More: House Republicans investigating Obama scandals must be viewed as an assembly line for organized character assassination, not congressional oversight.

This is especially true at the Times, which sees the president as a far too special historical figure to get the punishing scrutiny applied to people the Times thinks are slack-jawed country bumpkins, such as Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. They see Obama as a Jackie Robinson figure, a racial pioneer who endures the angry, spitting fury of the right-wing mobs with great courage and flair.

The tea party apparently deserves punishing investigations by the IRS because their opposition to Obama is clearly based on racism, just like the people who spat on Jackie Robinson. In his interview with the Times, when asked about over-enthusiastic use of executive power, Obama sneered at conservatives. "Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret." He added: "But ultimately, I'm not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers."

Instead of asking one solitary question about scandals, the Times decided it was more important to ask the most obvious question imaginable about Martin Luther King: "March on Washington coming up soon.

AD FEEDBACK

Are you going to do anything to mark it? Are you planning on being a part of the 50th anniversary?" Why, yes, Obama stressed: "I have a copy of the original program in my office, framed."

Obama's critics on the Left were upset that Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Michael Shear failed to ask about surveillance programs and the Snowden case. They failed to upbraid him about his Justice Department's crackdown on journalists or requiring Bush-trashing/Pulitzer-winning Times colleague James Risen to testify in court. What about drone attacks? These lines of inquiry are reserved for the dreaded warmongering "neoconservatives" of Team Bush.

Obama isn't the only Democrat who is being awarded with feigned ignorance by the Times. The "newspaper of record" looked ridiculous when disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner was forced to admit he kept right on "sexting" strange women who were not Mrs. Weiner after he resigned and promised to end his creepy online sexual misbehavior with strange women. In April, they published a gooey cover story in The New York Times Magazine titled "Huma and Anthony: The private life of a former power couple."

THE NEW YORK TIMES BURIES THE IRS SCANDAL

Stanley Kurtz contrasts coverage of the Washington Post with that of the New York Times:

In my continuing effort to assist the dead-tree deprived, here’s a comparison of today’s New York Times and Washington Post on their handling of the IRS scandal. Keep in mind that print headlines and web headlines often differ.

The Post has two front-page above-the-fold articles on the scandal, a news story and an in-depth look at the IRS in the wake of the controversy. There’s also a tough lead editorial expressing renewed outrage at the IRS’s conduct and demanding thorough reform.

Yet after the first dramatic day of congressional hearings, the Times has no front-page coverage at all of the scandal per se. Instead we have a story on President Obama’s efforts to move his agenda forward, beyond “distraction.” The Times story quotes White House aides accusing Republicans of seizing on “woes” to thwart the president’s agenda. The paper itself seems to be taking the White House line.

Just below the Times story on Obama’s attempts to move past “distraction,” a tiny squib notes that there is an article about the IRS on page 12. The teaser is: “Republicans are widening their aim at the Internal Revenue Service.” The headline of the page 12 Timesarticle itself is: “Republicans Broaden Scope of I.R.S. Inquiry, Hoping to Entangle White House.” For comparison, the Post’s front-page news story headline is: “Panel grills IRS on tax targeting.” In other words, the Times treats the scandal as little more than a Republican-hyped distraction, while the Post takes it as a matter that should concern everyone. In contrast to the Post, there is no Times editorial on the scandal today.

Colbert King’s Op-Ed in today’s Post condemns the IRS in passing, while also trying to rescue government itself from the taint of the scandal. Times Op-Eds by Gail Collins andCharles Blow in various ways try to minimize the scandal. All the Op-Eds seem to line up fairly well with the news coverage and official editorial stances (or lack thereof) of their respective papers.

DID "THE BIBLE" TV SERIES CHOOSE THE BEST STORIES TO TELL?

I like Professor Peter Enns' suggestion on this subject (though not on many other subjects).  He cites Victor Matthews' book, Old Testament Turning Points: The Narratives That Shaped a Nation in which Mathewes cites eight turning points in the Old Testament narrative.   Enns likes Matthews' suggestions, saying, 

“The Bible” puts the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABle. Although the series follows the storyline of the Old Testament, the producers opted to go more with the “big names”–let’s call it “celebrity”–approach to teaching the Bible than than the “stages of the story” approach as Matthews does.  [emphasis in the original]

That’s why Samson and Daniel each get their own hour and all we see of  Solomon is him playing with a model of the temple as a boy rather than lingering for a few minutes on how he caused a civil war.  Sheesh.

So, given the precious 10 hours, here’s what I would have done.

I would have given the last 3 hours to Jesus and the book of Acts, ending with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Telling the story of the Christian Bible is, after all, the point of the series, and giving about 65 years of history 1/3 of the airtime sounds right to me.

The remaining 7 hours I would divide this way.

Adam (and the flood as a transition to Abraham): .5 hours

Abraham (with Jacob and Joseph as a transition to Moses): 1.5 hours

Moses (go nuts with the plagues and the Red Sea, but don’t forget to linger a bit on Mt. Sinai) 1 hour

David  (leading off with conquest and judges and ending with the birth of Solomon) 1.5 hours

Divided Monarchy and Fall of the Northern Kingdom (beginning with Solomon’s screw ups and ending with Assyrian invasions, include a prophet or two) 1 hour

Fall of the Southern Kingdom and Return from Exile (leading off with maybe Josiah’s reforms, including Babylonian invasion, and return and rebuilding of the temple) 1.5 hours

As a transition to the New Testament, they could talk about the challenges of maintaining Jewish ways of life and frustrated messianic hopes in the centuries after the exile. Then, enter Jesus to redefine Jewish messianic hope.

That’s a lot to cover and the same sorts of adaptations would need to happen as we see in the series now. A lot would have to be left out. Still, it’s better than giving Samson and Daniel about 2 of the 10 hours, dragging out Abraham, and dealing with the post exilic period in literally one sentence.

Me: I think such a scheme makes a lot of sense.  It certainly would offer a better overall view of the narrative structure of the Old Testmant.   Enns correctly says,

. . .  most of the Old Testament is concerned about land: getting it, settling in it, keeping it, getting kicked out of it, and in the case of the southern kingdom of Judah, coming back home.

Related posts:

    -  WEIRD THINGS HAPPENED ON THE SET OF 'THE BIBLE'

    -  HISTORY CHANNEL'S "THE BIBLE" REACHED 13.1 MILLION VIEWERS

    -  WHY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

    -  ORAL TRADITION AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

SHAMEFUL NEWS ORG BLACKOUT OF HOUSE OF HORRORS

Kirsten Powers accuses national media: "We've forgotten what belongs on page one."

The Family Research Council  covers the case:

Trial and the Media's Error

Anyone who looked over at the rows of empty seats would have thought the trial hadn't begun. The media section of the courtroom, a full four benches of reserved space, was vacant. To most pro-lifers, it's a picture worth a thousand words--words, unfortunately, that the press refuses to use to tell the gruesome tale of accused mass murderer Kermit Gosnell. JD Mullane, one of the few reporters on hand to watch the abortionist's trial, still can't shake off the eerie feelings of what he heard there. "Sat through a full day of testimony at the Kermit Gosnell trial today," he tweeted. "It is beyond the most morbid Hollywood horror. It will change you."

One thing it hasn't changed, unfortunately, is the media's indifference to the real war on women. The same networks that devoted around-the-clock coverage to the fictional girlfriend of a college linebacker can't be bothered to report on one of the greatest human rights tragedies of our time. Gosnell, who took so much delight in snipping the necks of newborns that he kept a virtual trophy wall of their severed feet, is accused of killing at least one woman and seven children. Witnesses say his victims numbered many more--at least a hundred living, breathing newborns whose chests, as his teenage employee described, were "going up and down real fast." For the survivors, Gosnell's torture chamber is the nightmare they can never wake up from. There, he "perforated bowels, cervixes and uteruses, and left women sterile"--all in a blood-splattered, animal-infested war zone, where women's cries were the common soundtrack.

While the horror hasn't drawn reporters, it has drawn outrage. Social media is exploding in the vacuum of the networks' silence, as #Gosnell trends across the internet. The drumbeat continued yesterday, when the anger of 10 U.S. Representatives boiled over in a special order of Congress. With a sign "The National Media Cover-up" as their backdrop, almost a dozen Republicans took to the floor to expose the press's hypocrisy. "If Dr. Gosnell had walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an AR-15," said Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.), "it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing." This is a man, fumed Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) who "had a simple solution for unwanted babies--he killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it, 'ensuring fetal demise.' He called it 'snipping.' Over the years there were literally hundreds of 'snippings.' This we find from the grand jury's report. Snipping? This is not a medical procedure. This is murder, and we should call it what it is."

Others, like Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), the father of two daughters, took aim at the President. "Are you so blind," he asked, "are you so intractable, are you so extreme that you yourself can't even call this out for what it is, something that is reprehensible? Pro-life or pro-choice, this is reprehensible. [You are the father] as I am, of two little girls. It is worthy of your attention, it is worthy of your leadership, it is worthy of your direction." This is not, as some have called it, "after-birth abortion." It's murder. How thin, mused Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) is the line between abortion and homicide in this country? Dr. John Fleming (R-La.) pointed out the tragedy that Americans care more about the humane treatment of animals than they do about humans. Think back to the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal and the millions of angry Americans who clamored for his punishment. Where are those same people today, when children are literally screaming out in pain? It's simple,writes Kirsten Powers. "We've forgotten what belongs on Page 1." The loss of these lives, said an emotional Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) should "sear the conscience of civilized people everywhere."

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood--the same organization who lobbied on behalf of brutality like Gosnell's--appears to have more in common with the Philadelphia abortionist than people realize. At its Delaware branch, at least two nurses have resigned over the disgusting conditions of the clinic. "It was just unsafe," said Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich. "I couldn't tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was." The doctors "didn't wear gloves," she said, while her co-worker, Joyce Vasikonis, told Action News, "They were using instruments on patients that were not sterile." In a rush to get patients in and out, the women say the operating table was "not washed down, it's not even cleaned off. It has bloody drainage on it." After their resignations, which were prompted by a series of botched abortions, the clinic waved off the nurses' concerns. In a revealing interview with the state Department of Health, Mary Peterson was candid about the number of women at risk over unregulated clinics like this one. "I am not going to lie to you, we don't have the manpower to do routine inspections." Then perhaps it's time our government takes the half-trillion dollars it sends to Planned Parenthood and starts investing it in women's safety instead!

ABORTION DOCTOR ON TRIAL, BUT MEDIA NOT INTERESTED

The liberal/leftist media, aka the  "mainstream media," refuses to cover the sensational trial of Kermit Gosnell, the abortion doctor accused of killing seven live babies outside the womb.  Valerie Richardson of the Washington Times reports:    (HT: Drudge)

The trial details are nothing short of sensational: A doctor accused of killing seven newborns and a young woman at a filthy Philadelphia clinic strewn with body parts and described as a “slaughterhouse.”

It’s big news in Philadelphia, but nationally, not so much. The lack of coverage is a problem for a growing chorus of conservative and media critics, who allege that the scant national media attention can be attributed not to the courtroom drama but the politics of abortion.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortionist, meaning that any coverage of the trial risks painting the pro-choice movement in an unflattering light. In a statement issued last week, 20 conservative leaders called for an end to what they described as a “media blackout” and “censoring” of the trial for political reasons.

“The horrific excesses of the abortion industry exemplified by Gosnell and Planned Parenthood are major, national news stories any way you look at them. But the pro-abortion liberal media are determined to hide them from the public,” said the April 4 statement led by the conservative Media Research Center and signed by former Republican presidential candidateGary Bauer, columnist Kellyanne Conway and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

“The media have a solemn duty to the American people to report the news, not just news that helps the positions they support. It’s unprofessional, it’s disgusting, and it’s inhuman,” the statement said.

MRC also reports that there has been no network coverage on ABC, CBS,NBC, MSNBC, NPR or PBS, and just one brief mention on CNN.    [more . . . ]

HISTORY CHANNEL'S "THE BIBLE" REACHED 13.1 MILLION VIEWERS

Wow.  That's a lot of viewers.  Bill Carter of the New York Times reports:

The record pace being set by cable programming continued Sunday night as “The Bible,” a series on the History network, reached 13.1 million viewers, the biggest audience for an entertainment show on cable television this year.

Even by the standards of broadcast television, that would be an enormous audience, about twice as big as any show on NBC over the last month. Just as impressive was the show’s performance among viewers in the age groups sought by most advertisers.

The Bible stories featured Sunday night, Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham and Moses, attracted 5.6 million viewers in the 18- to 49-year-old age group, one of the best figures on cable this year. (It tops “Duck Dynasty,” for example, but not “The Walking Dead.”)

The numbers exceeded all expectations, especially the performance among younger adults, because it had been thought that the audience for Bible stories might be heavily tipped toward older viewers.

THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW ASSOCIATION INSPIRED ATTEMPTED MURDER

But don't expect the mainstream media to report it.  They blacken and falsely accuse conservatives at every turn, but avert their eyes when a liberal activist attempts to kill conservatives.  Remember the story of the man who arrived at the Washington offices of the Famly Research Council intent on mass murder?  Read on. . .

It seems hard to believe, Jim Treacher wrote yesterday, "but once upon a time, there was a shooting the national news didn't want to talk about." That's because the shooting was at FRC. And although the gunman was a politically-motivated activist who stormed a building less than a mile from the White House, there's a reason most Americans have never heard of him. After years of insisting that conservatives were the hateful ones, the attack at FRC was an inconvenient storyline for a media bent on hiding where the real intolerance lies.

The day after Floyd Corkins walked into our headquarters and opened fire, I said that while Corkins was responsible for the shooting, he had been given a license to perpetrate this act of violence by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) which has recklessly labeled every organization with which they disagree a "hate group." The media insisted we were overreacting. But yesterday in federal court, prosecutors explained that FRC had it right all along. In the official filing, FBI evidence verifies the fact that Corkins was inspired by SPLC to target our office. "He was a political activist," the statement read, "and considered the FRC a lobbying group. He committed the shooting for political reasons. He had identified the FRC as an anti-gay organization on the Southern Poverty Law Center Website."

Federal prosecutors read the statement of offense and then described FRC and our mission. No other organization was mentioned by name, but it was noted that Corkins had other social conservative groups on his hit-list. Of the many charges leveled against him, Corkins pleaded guilty to three, including domestic terrorism. "On August 15, 2012, the defendant assaulted [Leo] Johnson and the FRC with the intent to... coerce a significant portion of the civilian population of the District of Columbia and/or the United States; namely, any and all individuals associated with or supporting FRC, like-minded organizations, or otherwise holding beliefs contrary to or advocating against gay marriage."

Corkins confessed to Judge Richard Roberts that he hoped to intimidate gay rights opponents--which is exactly what SPLC has tried to do with its reckless labeling. And unfortunately for our own Leo Johnson, who was wounded in the attack, SPLC doesn't draw the line at name-calling. It insists on pinpointing FRC's location on the SPLC "hate map" as an open invitation to extremists like Corkins, who admitted yesterday that he intended to "kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims' faces." It would be a statement, he told the court, "against the people who work in that building." Although Corkins pleaded guilty, SPLC has yet to admit its role in creating this hostile environment. Even after an attempted mass murder of the FRC staff, the "hate map" is still prominently featured on the SPLC website today--which shocks most conservative pundits.

"When Congresswoman Giffords and several others were shot in Arizonaby Jared Loughner, the Left went into overdrive blaming Sarah Palin for a map that had a list of political targets on it. After the fact, we learned that Loughner was apolitical and he clearly had not used Sarah Palin's map of political targets. That did not stop the Left from blaming the right," said RedState's Erick Erickson. "By the way, Palin took down her target map after the controversy. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Crickets..." The Daily Caller's Treacher shakes his head at the double standard. "Now we have another [shooter] and another map. Except this time, the [shooter] is pointing directly at that map and saying, 'That's why I picked those people.' But since the targets of his thwarted rampage don't hold the correct opinions, they don't count."

The bottom line is that the Southern Poverty Law Center (the same one embraced by President Obama's Justice Department), is dangerous and driven by an anti-Christian animus. Their leaders are inciting hatred, and in this case, a clear connection to violence. They need to be held accountable, and they need to stop before people are killed for supporting traditional values. Only by ending its hate labeling of Christians will SPLC send a message that it no longer wishes to be a source for those who would commit acts of violence against Americans whose only crime is thinking differently than the radical Left. But whether the SPLC continues to demonize Christians or not, I can guarantee one thing: the Family Research Council team will not be distracted from our mission--not by bullets and certainly not by bullies.

JOURNALISTIC LIES ABOUT THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

The accusation: that FRC supports the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda.  Totally false.  It doesn't.  But liberals spread their lies fervently.  And that produces hate.  And hate produces killers.  One man recently tried to kill all the members of the FRC office staff.

PLease read the following statement by the Family Research Council:  (The bolding is my own)

It used to be that the media reported the story. Now they are the story. With fewer journalists able to separate the news from their personal politics, groups like FRC are no longer fighting bias--but outright deception. If you read Monday's Update or follow me on Twitter, then you know that FRC was highly complimentary of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who took the bold step of leading his country in a public prayer of confession for a multitude of sins Uganda committed over the last 50 years, including the genocide of Idi Amin. "We want Uganda to be known as a nation that fears God and as a nation whose foundations are firmly rooted in righteousness and justice..."

Not surprisingly, the U.S. media wasn't nearly as impressed by this gesture as FRC--a fact I alluded to in a tweet that same day. "American liberals are upset that Ugandan Pres is leading his nation in repentance--afraid of a modern example of a nation prospered by God?"

Well, as we learned two years ago, if you want to get the press's attention, just say the word "Uganda" and wait for the firestorm. For years, the African nation has been condemned for its severe laws criminalizing homosexuality. Despite allegations to the contrary, FRC has never supported that policy--or any policy that imposes the death penalty on homosexuals. What we do oppose is the suggestion that gay and lesbian acts are universal human rights. So when Congress introduced a resolution in 2010 denouncing Uganda's punishment for homosexuality, FRC fought--at the request of some Members--to strike the pro-homosexual "human rights" language from the final measure.

Several liberals, including David Weigel at the Washington Post, chose to misrepresent our involvement as an indication that we opposed the entire bill! "Family Research Council Lobbied against Resolution Condemning Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Law," Weigel's headline read. It was a convenient storyline for extremists like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who resort to demonizing FRC when they can't compete with us ideologically. Although Weigel later posted a retraction, the damage had already been done.

Now, more than two years later, the lies about FRC's position have resurfaced. After Monday's story, HRC had the audacity to post that by applauding President Museveni, FRC was "praising the 'kill the gays' bill." I challenge anyone with a half a brain to read my tweet or Update story and conclude that FRC is any way supporting the death penalty of homosexuals. But gay activists have their hooks so deeply in the mainstream media that reporters no longer bother to check their facts. Once the blogs start spreading the lies of organizations like HRC and SPLC, they percolate up to reporters like Carolyn Lochhead at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, who regurgitate HRC's garbage without so much as a courtesy call to our office. And these aren't harmless little lies either. They're the same intentional misrepresentations that led to the controversy over FRC's alleged ties to Chick-fil-A--culminating, as you may remember, in the violent shooting of one of our own employees!

Americans need to understand that this cozy relationship between the liberal media and unreliable sources like HRC is fostering a culture of hatred and violence--that same culture that led to the attempted mass murder of the entire FRC office. While it's troubling that any organization would deliberately spread untruths, it's more disturbing that someone who claims the title of journalist would report these lies as fact. Is it any wonder that distrust of the media is at an all-time high?

Update 11/30/12 - Current news is that Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill will not contain the death penalty.

DID PRO - GAY SITCOMS DETERMINE OUTCOME OF STATE VOTES ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

Short answer: Yes.  I agree with John Stonestreet's viewpoint:      Listen Now | Download

[...]  Writes one commentator very bluntly at the Patheos.com blog “Bad Catholic”: “According to Hollywood, gay men are…just fabulous. You can hardly turn on a sitcom, read a novel, or watch a movie without seeing the Gay Man Abstraction. . . " a guy who’s “funny, cute, kooky, has great taste in clothes, and will always solve [the] straight female protagonist’s problems by the end of the episode.”

And a recent survey from the Hollywood Reporter confirms how this portrayal has changed the public’s attitude on homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.”

When asked whether favorable portrayals of gay characters on shows like “Glee,” “Modern Family” and “The New Normal”  had changed their views on gay “marriage,” twenty-seven percent of respondents—or over eighty percent of those whose views had changed—said that they were more in favor of gay “marriage.”

Says pollster John Penn, that’s due especially to the influx of young voters who grew up watching these shows.

“Views on gay marriage are totally defined by age,” says Penn. “Almost twice as many voters under 35 say these shows made them more in favor of gay marriage. . ."

Translation: The hearts and minds of Americans—especially our young people—are being changed when it comes to same-sex “marriage” and homosexual practice because of entertainment, not arguments.

But what popular media isn’t telling us about homosexuality and gay “marriage” is more manipulative still. In the well-adjusted, sex-savvy, healthy and loving portrayals we see of gay characters and their relationships, something important gets lost: the cost of living counter to God’s design: a higher risk of HIV, greater promiscuity, depression and substance abuse, and a lower life-expectancy—all well-documented consequences of an active homosexual lifestyle.

But in this election, entertainment-driven stereotypes which ignore these realities may have tipped the scales for the first time ever. Three states have just voted to allow same-sex marriage, and more importantly, polls now show that a majority of all Americans favor the change.

Scottish politician Andrew Fletcher once said, “Let me write the songs of a nation, and I don’t care who writes its laws.” If he were alive today, he might add, let me write the popular sitcoms of a nation.

Folks, we’ve spent years, money, talents, reputations and voices communicating the logical, moral and political reasons why marriage can only mean a man and a woman for life. But we’ve failed to do what the other side has succeeded at for so long: capturing the culture’s imagination.

Christian ideas have been very present in theology and politics, but not the arts.  And so now we face a political road ahead that’s rougher than we’ve faced in a long time. And so our real work lies in the culture. And rather than give up and accept the “new normal,” we’ve got to take a page from the other side’s playbook.

We’ve got to realize that the ideas that most effectively shape a culture are not necessarily those that are argued, but those that are embodied. They capture the heart and mind because they capture the imagination.

Further Reading and Information

THR Poll: 'Glee' and 'Modern Family' Drive Voters to Favor Gay Marriage--Even Many Romney Voter
Hollywoodreporter.com | November 3, 2012

FIVE WAYS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TIPPED THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF OBAMA

See Rich Noyes' accurate analysis.

WEASEL ZIPPERS - BEST SITE FOR NEWS POSTS ALL DAY LONG

If I had the time, I would probably put up a dozen blog post links (out of 3 dozen or more!) that Weasel Zippers puts up throughout the day.  If you scan the Weasel Zippers headlines and short squibs you will know a thousand per cent more than you would relying on newspapers or TV (including Fox News).  Sample posts in the last few hours:

France’s Socialist Government To Ban Words “Mother” And “Father” From All Official Documents Thanks To Gay Marriage Law…

A glimpse into our “progressive” future should we choose to go down it.

Via Telegraph:

France is set to ban the words “mother” and “father” from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.

The move, which has outraged Catholics, means only the word “parents” would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples.

The draft law states that “marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender”.

It says all references to “mothers and fathers” in the civil code – which enshrines French law – will be swapped for simply “parents”.

The law would also give equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told France’s Catholic newspaper La Croix: “Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring a child up better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child’s development?”

Keep reading…

Note: Legalizing gay marriage and adoption was one of the first laws France’s socialist government passed after they were elected in May.

 

OIC Demands West Enact Laws Outlawing “Islamophobia”…

Silence infidels!

(Reuters) – The world’s largest Islamic body called on Tuesday for expressions of “Islamophobia” to be curbed by law, just as some countries restrict anti-Semitic speech or Holocaust denial.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the 56 countries that form the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), condemned a video made in the United States that defamed Islam and the Prophet Mohammad, igniting Muslim protests around the world this month.

“Incidents like this clearly demonstrate the urgent need on the part of states to introduce adequate protection against acts of hate crimes, hate speech, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation and negative stereotyping of religions, and incitement to religious hatred, as well as denigration of venerated personalities,” Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram said in a speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The Obama administration has condemned the film entitled “Innocence of Muslims” as “disgusting”. But Western countries remain determined to resist restrictions on freedom of speech and have already voiced disquiet about the repressive effect of blasphemy laws in Muslim countries such as Pakistan.

Akram said the crudely made video, as well as the burning of the Koran and the publication of defamatory cartoons, amount to “deliberate attempts to discriminate, defame, denigrate and vilify Muslims and their beliefs”.

Such acts constitute “flagrant incitement to violence” and are not protected by freedom of expression, Akram said. Rather, he said, Islamophobia must be acknowledged as a contemporary form of racism and be dealt with as such.

“Not to do so would be a clear example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be treated in law and practice equal to the treatment given to anti-Semitism, especially in legislations.”

Other posts:

Breakdown Of Obama’s U.N. Speech: 5 Minutes Spent Talking About Mohammed Film, Only 1 1/2 Minutes On Iran…

Good News: 60% Of U.S. Firms To Kill Health Insurance Or Charge Employees More Under Obamacare…

Islamic Battle Flag Makes Its Way From Cairo To NYC Muslim Day Parade…

NY Democrat Attends Muslim Parade In Manhattan, Shocked To Hear Anti-Semitic Rhetoric From Speakers…

Afghan: 16-Year-Old Girl Whipped 100 Times On Orders Of Muslim Cleric…

Senior Jihadi Writer Calls For Beheading Westerners, Putting Their Decapitated Heads On Display To Silence Attempts To Mock Mohammed…

POLLS AND THE PRESS

AMERICANS HAVE NO IDEA HOW FEW GAY PEOPLE THERE ARE

I was doing the dishes when I heard Rush Limbaugh refer to this Atlantic article by Garance Franke-Ruta.  It's a startling "tribute" to the power of the media that so many people think 25% of the population is gay when the actual number is around 2%.  Franke-Ruta opens her article stating the same:

Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

She writes:

In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, "U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian," Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.

Here's a chart from Gallup:
Franke-Ruta points out rightly,

..."the extraordinary confusion over the percentage of gay people may reflect a triumph of the gay and lesbian movement's decades-long fight against invisibility and the closet.  "My first reaction to that, aside from a little chuckle, is that it's actually a sign of the success of the movement for LGBT rights," said Stuart Gaffney, a spokesman for the group Marriage Equality USA."

I can only agree.  Americans have been deluged with pro-homosexual propaganda which has had a powerful effect, as the poll numbers above indicate. 

Read the whole article...

SOUTH KOREANS ADDICTED TO THE INTERNET - (AND SO ARE WE)

Eric Metaxas writes for "Breakpoint": (my emphases)

By most estimates, South Korea is the most-wired society in the world. South Koreans “enjoy” virtually universal internet access at speeds and prices that Americans can only dream about.

But that access comes at a high price: By official government estimates, nearly two million South Koreans can be described as “internet addicts.”

Now, the words “addict” and “addiction” get thrown around a lot in contemporary culture, but what would you call the following: a Korean couple repeatedly leaves their apartment and goes to an internet café where they spend all night playing an internet game. One night they return to find their three-month-old daughter dead from malnutrition and dehydration.

This actually happened in Seoul. While it’s the most extreme case, the difference is one of degree, not kind. An episode of PBS’ “Frontline” showed South Korean kids at government-sponsored rehab centers trying, mostly in vain, to wean themselves from their dependence on the internet.

QUICK TAKES

- - Newt: Would ABC ever air a show that portrays Muslims the way "GCB" portrays Christians?

         - - George Will - As Government becomes bigger, it becomes more lawless.       

         - - Tina Kobe (a sharp young commentator at HotAir.com), takes Bill Maher to task for his vicious, ignorant attack on homeschoolers. This is a MUST READ if you want to know about homeschooling successes.

- - Newest Limbaugh advertiser: Twitchy.com   (Twitchy.com is a social media aggregator started by Michelle Malkin, a cracker jack of a blogger who began HotAir and has now added Twitchy to her entrepreneurial effort.    The full announcement of her new Twitchy.com ad buy with Rush Limbaugh is here.)

CNN'S SOLEDAD O'BRIEN ILLUSTRATES DEMOCRAT MEDIA BIAS - AMAZING!

(Update 3/14/12) - Michelle Malkin gives us background on Soledad O'Brien's personal and emotional commitments that most people don't know.  Don't look to her for objective journalism.

(Original post) - Below is the "must see" video I linked to earlier today.   Ed Morrissey offers commentary.  The left can be depended on to cast its opponents as "racist."  The issue here is the Democratic media complex acting as a gatekeeper over what the public can see and know. 

Pollak ran for Congress in 2010.  Here's a commercial featuring Joel Pollak's lovely South African wife.  I would think she pretty much defuses the charge of racism!  (HT Morrissey)

Update: On Obama and Harvard Professor Derrick Bell, Investor's Business Daily (via Pamela Gellar) opines:

 

NEWT GINGRICH THRASHES ELITE MEDIA FOR DIVERTING ATTENTION FROM RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ISSUE

No one challenges the elite media's topic obsessions better than Newt Gingrich.  Three cheers for his response to David Gregory's questioning. 

 

PAT BUCHANAN BLACKLISTED FROM MSNBC

The blacklisting of Pat Buchanan from MSNBC represents another case of the uber left refusing to entertain viewpoints counter to the "orthodoxies" they espouse.  I certainly don't agree with everything Buchanan says, but on the other hand, he says a lot of things worthy of serious reflection and debate.

Naturally the gay and lesbian crowd went after him when he had the temerity to say "I believe homosexual acts to be 'unnatural and immoral.'"  The Human Rights Campaign (America's leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people) said that Buchanan's "extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world."   Buchanan's response is simple:  "That homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral has been doctrine in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years." 

In his response to being let go, "Blacklisted, But Not Beaten," Buchanan discusses the accusations hurled at him of being not only a homophobe, but a racist and an anti-semite as well.

The Family Research Council offers its own take on Buchanan's dismissal:

Fired Fighter

After 10 years of commentating on MSNBC, Pat Buchanan is out of a job. The network decided to "part ways" with the former presidential candidate after intense pressure from rabid activists, who whined that Buchanan's new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2015? hurt their feelings. His views on homosexuality and the decline of Christian America triggered the rage of the Left and resulted in a massive campaign of corporate bullying. As usual, liberals bombard the media with cries of "discrimination" and "intolerance" until the networks relent and agree to a one-sided debate. In his "Blacklisted, But Not Beaten" column, Pat exposes the strategy of the liberals who are too afraid to dialogue.

[Buchanan writes:] The modus operandi of these thought police... is to prattle about their love of dissent and devotion to the First Amendment, [while] they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent. Without a hearing, they smear and stigmatize as racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic any who contradict what George Orwell once called their 'smelly little orthodoxies.' They then demand that the heretic recant, grovel, apologize, and pledge to go forth and sin no more. Defy them, and they will go after the network where you work, the newspapers that carry your column, the conventions that invite you to speak. If all else fails, they go after the advertisers. I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats, and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.

"Let error be tolerated," Pat quoted Thomas Jefferson, "so long as reason is free to combat it." The media, and in fact our entire society, was built on a foundation of civil debate. Like Pat, radical liberals work hard to keep FRC off TV and radio. I'm thankful that MSNBC and other networks have allowed several of my FRC teammates and me to represent your values in many recent debates.

Me:  In his article defending himself, Buchanan wrote:

Documented in the 488 pages and 1,500 footnotes of Suicide of a Superpower is my thesis that America is Balkanizing, breaking down along the lines of religion, race, ethnicity, culture, and ideology and that Western peoples are facing demographic death by century’s end. Are such subjects taboo? Are they unfit for national debate?

So it would seem. MSNBC President Phil Griffin told reporters, “I don’t think the ideas that [Buchanan] put forth [in his book] are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC.”

I think such subjects are eminently worthy of serious discussion.  That a TV station thinks differently illustrates the mentality that is fueling the "suicide of a superpower."

MEDIA SILENCE ON MARCH FOR LIFE

Tina Korbe writes:

My hopes for a Time magazine spread about the March for Life protesters are fading fast. For the fifth year in a row, The New York Times ignored the March for Life, which drew at least a hundred thousand participants in D.C. alone.

She quotes NewBusters:

For the fifth year in a row, there was no story in the Times print edition on the annual March for Life against abortion in Washington, D.C., which every year draws massive crowds in unpromising weather on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion. …

As Times Watch reported last January, the 2011 print edition of the Times did not feature an actual news story of the thousands who marched in frigid weather, just two photos with the caption “Abortion Opponents Rally On the National Mall,” above a three- sentence description that led to a link to photographs online. That was actually a vast improvement; the Times in print absolutely ignored the March for Life in 2010, 2009, and 2008 (a 300-word story marked the 2007 March for Life on January 23 of that year).

The Times is far more eager to publicize protests in support of liberal causes, no matter how puny. When four protesters marched in support of the doomed Dream Act to grant amnesty to illegal immigrant students, the Times marked the occasion with a 780-word story.

Korbe comments further:

Believe it or not, it gets worse. The NYT has a special standing feature on its blog, The Caucus, to document “Happenings in Washington” and not even that included a reference to the March. It did, however, mention that the N.H.L. Stanley Cup Champions, the Boston Bruins, would be honored by the president at the White House. Important stuff.

Meanwhile, about 50,000 people participated in the West Coast March for Life and, according to a tweet from Michelle Malkin, not even the local media turned out to cover it.

As a reminder to journalists who’ve forgotten, in general, the bigger the size and scope of the event, the more newsworthy it is. That means a protest of 100,000 is generally more newsworthy than a protest of 10. . . . 

Me:  I think it shameful and embarrassing that the New York Times is such an ideological organ that it fails to cover major events such as a pro-life rally.  Shame and double shame.  

Photo credits: St. Blogostine blog

Further note:  Record Turnout for Paris March for Life.

MEDIA BIAS CALLED OUT BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association writes:

During last Saturday's Republican Presidential Debate on the ABC television network, hosts Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos directed a lot of attention to the issues of contraception and homosexual marriage.

In rebutting an obvious attempt by the debate panel to spin the issues, some candidates took the liberal media to task by correctly identifying their bias against people of faith.

 

NEWT GINGRICH SMACKS DOWN SCOTT PELLY ON THE "RULE OF LAW"

Ed Morrissey comments:

The two worst aspects of this exchange?  The smug look on Pelley’s face when he challenged Gingrich on this point, and the “no” you can hear him utter just as Gingrich started his smackdown of Pelley.  Regardless of the context of this exchange, this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless, and why the Republican Party needs to force a format change.  Pelley isn’t running for President, and we don’t need to have Pelley debating the presidential candidates.  We need them to debate each other.  It’s only made more ridiculous when a moderator-turned-participant ends up as far out of his depth as Pelley was on this question.