Archive for July, 2012


Anderson Cooper closed one of five segments of his weeknightly CNN show that he recently devoted to attacking principally Rep. Michele Bachmann with a genuflection towards an iconic newsman, Edward R. Murrow.  He deployed against her the gauntlet Murrow threw down to Sen. Joseph McCarthy in March 1954: “The line between investigating and persecuting is a [very] fine one.”  If anyone has stepped over that line, however, it is Cooper himself, rather than the Minnesota congresswoman.

Night after night during the week of July 16th, the host of “Anderson Cooper 360” failed to meet even the most basic standards of investigative journalism.  The irony is that, in his ill-concealed persecution of Mrs. Bachmann, Cooper has serially engaged in precisely the practices he pillories her and others for allegedly using, by his account, to destroy the reputation of the Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Muslim-American woman named Huma Abedin.  Let us count the ways:

• Anderson Cooper insists that Michele Bachmann (who he singles out for most of his criticism, despite the fact that she was but one of five Members of Congress to raise concerns not only about Ms. Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, but those of a number of others the Obama administration has enlisted as officials, advisors and/or liaisons to “the Muslim community”) failed to do her homework. Yet, Cooper repeatedly showed his ignorance of the extensive evidence cited by the legislators, even as he mentioned the website where some of it resides: the Center for Security Policy’s online video course at www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com

• As he accused Rep. Bachmann of playing fast and loose with the facts, Cooper repeatedly mischaracterized the nature of the legislators’ request for five federal inspectors general to conduct investigations.  He or his echo-chamber of exclusively like-minded guests complained that Ms. Abedin is accused of being a “spy” and engaging in “treason” and that she has been subjected to a groundless, bigoted and McCarthyite witch-hunt. Several of the reporters and interested parties who added color commentary (sometimes repeatedly) further demeaned Congresswoman Bachmann by asserting that she is simply engaging in partisan politics and fund-raising for her reelection campaign.

• As with the Congresswoman and to a lesser extent her colleagues, Cooper also made a point of going after this columnist.  If anyone is guilty of “McCarthyism,” though, it is the journalistic poseur who specializes in shooting the messenger and buying into and tendentiously proclaiming that there are “no facts” supporting the unwanted message – rather than rigorously examining and accurately reporting on the vast amount of evidence that inconveniently does exist.

• While portraying Huma Abedin as an innocent victim of smears, Cooper engaged in his own smearing – occasionally through his rants on the subject, often by citing others who have indulged in ad hominem attacks against the congresswoman and her team.  He repeatedly showcased such attacks by individuals in her own party, even though they were clearly were unfamiliar with the actual nature of the legislators’ concerns and the abundant grounds for raising them.

• One of the prominent figures in this televised persecution of Michele Bachmann was the man who kicked it off:  Her colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota and the first Muslim Member of Congress.  As it happens, according to the public record (recently brilliantly distilled by counter-terrorism expert Patrick Poole at PJ Media), Mr. Ellison has himself been closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood – a natty problem Rep. Bachmann has noted, to Cooper’s horror.

So, the “360” host had Keith Ellison on to help deflect that charge.  When the congressman blithely denied that he was a Muslim Brother or, for that matter, that he even knew very much about the Brotherhood, well, that was good enough for crack investigative journalist Anderson Cooper.  Back to the persecution of Michele Bachmann, with Cooper egging on Minnesota’s Muslim congressman.

• Anderson Cooper further discredited his claim to be an independent, let alone exacting, journalist by taking at face value the FBI’s assurances that it had not dealt with Muslim Brothersor other “extremists” in the recent purge of its training materials and files.  The evidence of that falsehood is readily available.  Yet, the FBI statement was taken – and presented – as though gospel by a credulous host whose only skepticism was reserved for why Michele Bachmann had been charged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers with investigating the extent of the Brotherhood’s influence operations inside the Bureau.] 

• Perhaps most distressing was the service Anderson Cooper has provided to the Islamists by promoting the meme that inquiries about specific Muslims with demonstrable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood amount to attacks on all Muslims.  This plays into the victimhood mantra Islamists use to justify their jihadism undertaken ostensibly for the purpose of defending beleaguered co-religionists.

Applying Cooper’s logic, every Muslim – even those whose associations (personal, familial, professional or other) with an organization like the Brotherhood that is sworn to our destruction clearly violate the government’s own guidelines for security clearances, to say nothing of the oath of office to support the Constitution and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic – are to be given an automatic pass.  That may also be the view of the Obama administration, but it is a formula for disaster for the country.

There is a particular irony to Anderson Cooper’s, well, jihad against those who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood.  For an avowedly gay man, Anderson Cooper is rooting for the wrong team.  If the Islamists have their way here, he will not simply be on the wrong side of the line.  He’ll be toast.

Frank Gaffney

Frank Gaffney Jr. is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy  and author of War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World .

http://townhall.com/columnists/frankgaffney/2012/07/31/anderson_cooper_crosses_the_line/page/full/

Advertisements

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy is in hot water with the LGBT community because he committed the cardinal sin in an age of political correctness: Thou must not speak ill of anything gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgenders wish to do.

In an interview with the Baptist Press and later on a Christian radio program, Cathy, whose father, the philanthropist Truett Cathy, founded the company, defended marriage between a man and a woman and when asked about the company’s support of traditional marriage said, “Guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.” Cathy believes American society is rotting (and where is evidence to the contrary?) because the country has turned away from God.

That was it. Cathy did not say he would deny someone with a different view than his the right to eat in or work at any of his fast-food restaurants, which would violate the law. He did not say anything hateful about them. He simply expressed a deeply held conviction rooted in his Christian faith.

The reaction tells you everything you need to know about certain liberals who believe every sort of speech, activity and expression should be protected, except the speech, activity and expression of evangelical Christians.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said he would try to deny Chick-fil-A’s application for permits to open restaurants in that city. Now that’s discrimination. Menino wants to ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, not for discriminating against customers or employees, but because of its owner’s beliefs, a threat he has since backed away from. Does Boston have “thought police” who might be ordered to investigate whether other business owners already operating in the city hold similar views? I’ll bet there’s someone at Durgin-Park who holds similar views. What about a player for the Boston Red Sox? Better follow them to see if any of them go to church.

Maybe Mayor Menino would like to force business owners in the city to testify before an official panel of grand inquisitors and then deny operating licenses to anyone who believes traditional marriage should be the norm?

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has said, “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values.” Are Chicago values represented by the anti-Semitic firebrand Louis Farrakhan with whom Emanuel is going to partner in hopes of reducing the number of homicides in his city? Are Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic and anti-gay sentiments somehow more palatable, more of value, than Dan Cathy’s support of marriage and family?

The Weekly Standard found a video posted on the Nation of Islam’s website of a Farrakhan speech two months ago in which he blasted President Obama for endorsing same-sex marriage. Farrakhan said Obama is “the first president that sanctioned what the scriptures forbid.” He added, “…sin is sin according to the standard of God” and “the Bible forbids it.”

That goes a lot further than Dan Cathy.

The Jim Henson Company has decided to pull its Creature Shop toys from Chick-fil-A and donate profits already made to GLAAD, the media-monitoring group that promotes the image of LGBT people. I knew Jim Henson when we both worked at the NBC-TV station in Washington in the mid-1960s. While we never discussed politics, I don’t think at the time, at least, he would have wanted his characters, which appeal to everyone, involved in a cultural and political battle.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Senator Rick Santorum, both also former presidential candidates, have called for a show of support for Cathy. They want people to eat at Chick-fil-A restaurants on August 1.

This is more than an economic battle. It is a First Amendment issue. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. Dan Cathy has a right to his opinion, so does Farrakhan, so do we all.

The real “war” in this country is not only against the supposed civil right of nontraditional marriage. It is a war against conservative Christians and a denial of the same rights the LGBT community claims for itself. Free speech is an American value. We shouldn’t settle for anything less.

Cal  Thomas

Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, “Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America“.

http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2012/07/31/eat_more_chicken/page/full/


“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” — Ronald Reagan

”You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

1) Being Open Minded:To a liberal, this has nothing at all to do with seriously considering other people’s ideas. To the contrary, liberals define being “open-minded” as agreeing with them. What could be more close-minded than assuming that not only are you right, but that you don’t even need to consider another viewpoint because anyone who disagrees must be evil?

2) Racism:Liberals start with the presumption that only white people who don’t belong to the Democratic Party can be racist. So, for example, even if Jeremiah Wright can make it clear that he hates white people because of their skin color or if liberals take an explicitly racist political position, like suggesting that black people are too stupid and incompetent to get identification to vote, they can’t be racist. White Republicans, on the other hand, are generally assumed to be racist by default, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

3) Fairness:In all fairness, I must admit that fairness is an arbitrary concept. So, you could make the argument that no one could get “fairness” wrong. Still, liberals do because they don’t make any effort to actually “be fair.” As a practical matter, liberals define “fairness” as taking as much as possible from people who they don’t think are going to vote for them and giving it to people who may vote for them in return for their ill gotten largesse. Certainly conservatives, libertarians, and moderates might disagree about how much money to take from the wealthy to redistribute to the poor or how to help the disadvantaged, but the only liberal answer to the question, “How much is enough?” is “more.”

4) Greed:To a liberal, believing that you pay too much in taxes or even opposing paying more in taxes is greedy. In actuality, wanting to loot as much money as possible that someone else has earned to use for your own purposes, which is what liberals do, is a much better example of greed.

5) Hate:Liberals often define simple disagreement with them on issues like gay marriage, tax rates, or abortion as hatred. No matter how well a position is explained, or the logical underpinnings behind it, it’s chalked up to hate. Meanwhile, the angriest, most vicious, most hateful people in all of politics are liberals railing against what they say is “hatred.” This irony is completely lost on the Left.

6) Investment:Actual investments involve putting money or resources into a project in hopes that they will appreciate in value. Liberals skip the second half of that equation. To them, an “investment” is taking someone else’s tax dollars and putting them into a project that liberals approve of and whether a profit is made or lost is so irrelevant that they typically don’t even bother to measure the results.

7) Charity:Contributing your own money or time to a good cause is charity. Liberals view themselves as charitable if they take someone else’s tax dollars and give them away to people they hope will vote for them in return. At a minimum, they should at least credit the taxpayers who paid for the money they gave away for the charity, although it’s not really charity if it’s involuntary. Of course, there’s nothing charitable about asking someone else to sacrifice for your gain, which could actually be better described as selfish.

8) Patriotism:Liberals love America the way a wife beater loves his spouse. That’s why they’re always beating up the country “for its own good.” Doesn’t the country understand that liberals have to hit it in the mouth because they LOVE IT SO MUCH?!?!? Of course, the conventional definition of patriotism, which is loving your country and wishing it well, isn’t one that liberals can wrap their heads around.

9) Tolerance:In a free, open, and pluralistic society, there are all sorts of behaviors that we may have to tolerate, even though we don’t approve of those activities. Liberals don’t get this distinction. For one thing, they don’t understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance. They also don’t extend any of the tolerance they’re agitating for to people who disagree with them. Liberals silence people who disagree with them at every opportunity which is, dare we say it, an extremely intolerant way to behave.

10) Diversity: What liberals mean by “diversity” is that they want a broad range of people from different races, colors, and creeds who have identical political views. A black or Hispanic conservative doesn’t contribute to “diversity” in liberal eyes because he actually has diverse views. Incredible role models for women like Sarah Palin can’t be feminists to liberals because she doesn’t share the same liberal beliefs as sexist pigs like Anthony Weiner and Bill Maher. How can you have any meaningful “diversity” when everyone has to think the same way?

John Hawkins

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage. He’s also the co-owner of the The Looking Spoon. You can read more from John Hawkins on Facebook, Twitter, G+, You Tube, & Pajamas Media.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/07/31/10_concepts_liberals_talk_about_incessantly_but_dont_understand/page/full/


My name is Mike Adams. I’m honored to have been elected mayor of Salem, Massachusetts at this seminal point in history as we struggle to eradicate intolerance and prejudice towards gays, bisexuals, lesbians, and transgendered persons. Members of the GBLT community (hereafter: Giblets) are in need of our support. But they cannot go it alone. They need the support of the government as well.

I have been inspired by the recent efforts of the Mayor of Boston who has the courage to say that intolerance will not be tolerated in Massachusetts. He is a prescient man. He knows that people who hold disapproving views of sexual minorities will eventually begin to subject them to discrimination. He knows that those who serve chicken may someday decide not to serve Giblets.  And he knows that because of what they might do, they must be banned in Boston immediately. In other words, it is often necessary to engage in prejudgments if one is going to prevent prejudice. And discrimination must be used as a means of preventing discrimination. The mayor’s steps are encouraging but they do not go far enough. So, today, I am proposing a new series of criminal procedures that will be invoked against restaurant owners who may hold negative attitudes toward the Giblet community. My specific proposals follow in their entirety:

1.  After someone concludes that a restaurant owner may, in fact, be homophobic, the accuser will simply enter a complaint with the local magistrates. If the complaint is deemed credible, the magistrates will have the person arrested and brought in for a public examination. If the magistrate is satisfied that the complaint is well-founded, the prisoner will be handed over to superior court. I will then petition the governor to re-establish a Court of Over and Terminer

2. A person can potentially be indicted for afflicting someone with homophobia or for making an unlawful covenant with God in a church that does not allow everyone to make a similar covenant. Once indicted, the defendant will go to trial, preferably the same day.

3. If indicted, judges will apply peine forte et dure, in which stones will be piled on the accused’s chest until he can no longer breathe. If he is able to speak, the accused may plead not guilty and receive a jury trial. The jury will be comprised of a subset of those who brought forth the true bill resulting in the original indictment.

4. The evidence at trial will generally be comprised of the testimony of those afflicted by the practitioners of homophobia. In court, we will also rely heavily on the touch test, which was once used in Massachusetts. If the accused homophobe touches the Giblet while the Giblet is having a fit, and the fit then stops, that will mean the accused is the person who has afflicted the victim. It will demonstrate that they wielded power over them. But it will not be the only evidence deemed admissible in court.

5. Other evidence will potentially include: the confessions of the accused, the testimony of a person who confessed to being a homophobe identifying others as homophobes, and the existence of homophobe’s teats on the body of the accused. A homophobe’s teat is a mole or blemish somewhere on the body that is insensitive to touch. The discovery of such insensitive areas will be considered de facto evidence of homophobia, which is a form of insensitivity.

 

If convicted, appeal is allowed in which convicts will be subjected to an older and more established set of procedures known as Trial by Ordeal. (This is a slight modification we will call Appeal by Ordeal. It is justice with a poetic ring). The specific rules for appeal follow in their entirety:

1.  The appellant may walk a nine feet, over glowing ploughshares, heated over an open fire. Innocence will be established by a complete lack of injury. 

2. If the appellant is afraid of fire, he may instead remove a stone from a pot of boiling water, oil, or lead. Again, a lack of injury will establish innocence. People can reasonably disagree on a variety of issues such as the use of split infinitives. But no one should be expected to have his, her, or its food prepared by someone who disapproves of sodomy. Just as we must purge the food industry of people who prepare meals with unclean hands, we must also remove those who prepare meals with unclean thoughts.

 

Massachusetts has always been ahead of its time. It only makes sense that we should lead the long march through our economic and social institutions.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts “Womyn” On Campus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2012/07/31/the_salem_sandwich_trials/page/full/

 

A Huge Asset

Posted: July 31, 2012 in Max Lucado

A Huge Asset.


“Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 10:31

If you’ve been around the world of golf for long, you know that winning the coveted “Green Jacket” at the Masters is arguably the most coveted accomplishment in golf. As I was watching the final round of the Masters Golf Tournament in 2007, I was thrilled to hear the winner give credit to Jesus for the gifts and abilities the Lord had given him. With much of the world watching, he turned the spotlight from himself to Jesus!

It brought to mind the year that Bernhard Langer won the Masters. In the Butler Cabin afterward, before millions watching on TV the interviewer said to him, “Winning the Masters must be the greatest moment in your life.” To which the champion replied, “This is no doubt the greatest moment in my golf career, but it doesn’t compare to the fact that 2,000 years ago today my Lord and Savior rose from the dead to give me eternal life!”

I was off my couch, ecstatic that Jesus and what He has done for us was getting such global recognition!

This is exactly what it means to glorify God and to live with enough biblical sanity to know that all we have and all we are is directly attributable to God’s grace and provision in our lives. Think about it. Where would you be today if God had not given you the mental horsepower to figure stuff out, the opportunities for education and promotion, the talents to do things well, the spiritual gifts to participate successfully in His work, the income to keep food on the table, or the wisdom of His Word to help you know how to live? The list is long when it comes to what God has graciously given you. To say nothing of the gift of salvation through Jesus’ death and resurrection! The fact is that you and I would be nothing if it weren’t for God’s generous and undeserved supply.

So, since all we have is from God, it’s important that we don’t act like we are self-made people. In fact, when King Nebuchadnezzar took God’s glory for himself, he was banished to eating grass in the field like an animal until he got the picture straight about who should get the glory for his power and position (Daniel 4:29-34). And Herod was eaten by worms and died for letting the people call him god (Acts 12:21-23). God takes it seriously when we rob Him of His glory!

Granted, it’s not always easy to know just what to say when you want to transfer the applause from yourself to God. But just knowing that it’s important to give credit where credit is due is a good beginning. Every once in a while, someone will tell me what a great sermon I preached, and in that moment I am keenly aware that what I do with the spotlight is very important. I have to tell you, when I take the compliment for myself I end up feeling small and disloyal. But when I acknowledge that I had no idea what they needed to hear, I can say with confidence, “We both know where the blessing came from!” and I love to tell people that if they were blessed by the sermon it’s a sure sign of how much God loves them. Every time I turn the spotlight where it belongs, I end up feeling grateful to God and joyful that I was able to give Him the glory.

So take the Bible’s advice: Keep the spotlight on Jesus—then know the joy of what it means to live for His glory.

YOUR JOURNEY…

  • What things in your life tend to attract compliments from others? Could it be your knowledge, your ideas, your talents, your home, your car? Are you tempted to steal the glory for those things, or do you readily and regularly give credit to God?
  • Are there things in your life that you wish would attract compliments from others? Ask the Lord to reveal those areas, and allow Him to reshape your self-seeking perspective with a biblical sense of gratitude for those blessings.
  • Read about what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:29-31. How did Nebuchadnezzar’s attitude change in verses 34-37? What can you learn from his example?

http://getmorestrength.org/daily/whos-in-the-spotlight/


Let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing —James 1:4

Many of us appear to be all right in general, but there are still some areas in which we are careless and lazy; it is not a matter of sin, but the remnants of our carnal life that tend to make us careless. Carelessness is an insult to the Holy Spirit. We should have no carelessness about us either in the way we worship God, or even in the way we eat and drink.

Not only must our relationship to God be right, but the outward expression of that relationship must also be right. Ultimately, God will allow nothing to escape; every detail of our lives is under His scrutiny. God will bring us back in countless ways to the same point over and over again. And He never tires of bringing us back to that one point until we learn the lesson, because His purpose is to produce the finished product. It may be a problem arising from our impulsive nature, but again and again, with the most persistent patience, God has brought us back to that one particular point. Or the problem may be our idle and wandering thinking, or our independent nature and self-interest. Through this process, God is trying to impress upon us the one thing that is not entirely right in our lives.

We have been having a wonderful time in our studies over the revealed truth of God’s redemption, and our hearts are perfect toward Him. And His wonderful work in us makes us know that overall we are right with Him. “Let patience have its perfect work . . . .” The Holy Spirit speaking through James said, “Now let your patience become a finished product.” Beware of becoming careless over the small details of life and saying, “Oh, that will have to do for now.” Whatever it may be, God will point it out with persistence until we become entirely His.

http://utmost.org/becoming-entirely-his/