Category: US Politics

(CNSNews.com)- (CNSNews.com)- Speaking on C-SPAN’s “After Words” on Saturday, Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell said CNN and MSNBC would “rather go down in flames” than “balance out” their network coverage.

“[I]f you’re CNN and you want to regain your audience, well, within 15 seconds a market analysis will tell you the conservatives left. Bring back – don’t go with the conservative standpoint, just even out, balance out your network coverage. Go back to news and you’re going to bring conservatives back,” Bozell said. “They’d rather go down in flames than do that. MSNBC would rather go down in flames.”

Bozell was discussing his new book, “Unmasked: Big Media’s War Against Trump,” with Host Carrie Sheffield, national editor of Accuracy in Media.

Asked why media aren’t listening to their consumers, who are clearly telling them what they need to do to regain audience and credibility, Bozell said it’s because “politics trumps business”:

“There’s a fallacy that says that business trumps politics. No, it doesn’t – politics trumps business when it comes to the news media, for that reason.”

Bozell then recalled how he once gave two pieces of advice to a man he knew who became president at CNN:

“The first one is: get on CNN One, or whatever your aircraft is, go to Palm Beach, bring your checkbook, ask around, try to find directions to this guy Rush Limbaugh’s house.

“Go to his house, knock on the door, open up your checkbook, sign it – a blank check. Give it to him, tell him he can fill it in for whatever amount he wants and do whatever he wants and in one week you’ll have the number one network on television. That’s all you have to do.”

“He said ‘Well, what’s your second idea?’ And I said, ‘Whatever you do, don’t pick a fight with Roger Ailes. He chews roofing nails for breakfast.’ Well, this guy did and he lost his job as a result.”

The lesson of the story, Bozell said, is that liberal media don’t have to become conservative in order to win back viewers. All they need to do is become balanced in their coverage.

Unfortunately, networks like CNN and MSNBC would “rather go down in flames” than provide fair and balanced news coverage, Bozell concluded:

“But the point was, if you’re CNN and you want to regain your audience, well within 15 seconds a market analysis will tell you the conservatives left. Bring back- don’t go with the conservative standpoint, just even out, balance out your network coverage. Go back to news and you’re going to bring conservatives back.”

“They’d rather go down in flames than do that. MSNBC would rather go down in flames. All these networks. Look at Fox, if you’re looking at this as a business proposition, the big kid on the block is Fox. So what do they do? They do the opposite of Fox. They know what they’re doing. They’d rather go down in flames than do what Fox is doing.”

Those on the left are beginning to remind me of the nemesis of Road Runner, Wiley Coyote, who continued to seek out Acme products to enable him to catch the Road Runner. And each time, the new attempts were to no avail. The left has had boxes shipped to them of Russia collusion, racism, recession, and all are failing, just as with the Coyote. They have no policy initiatives other than “free” and “open borders,” which are also failing. So, when all is lost, what does the left now turn to? Yes, now they’re quoting the Constitution and the Bible in an attempt to advance socialism.

You heard me correctly. The party that booed God back at their National Convention in 2012 in Charlotte now wants to “cherry-pick” the Bible to promote socialism. The party that embraces such [un]constitutional policies such as sanctuary states and cities for illegal immigrants now wants to quote from our rule of law? It all happened at a recent Democratic [Socialist] Party meeting, held in that bastion of constitutionalism and Christianity, San Francisco.

Below are the remarks, in pertinent part, from the Democratic Party meeting, according to The Washington Free Beacon:

“A speaker at the Democratic National Committee summer meeting Friday said if free health care is labeled ‘socialism’ by Republicans, then they should ‘acknowledge that the Bible must then promote socialism.’

“‘When we embrace moral language, we must ask does our policy care for the least of these? Does it lift up those who are most marginalized and dejected in our society? Does it establish justice? That is the moral question,’ said Rev. William Barber, who has spoken at several DNC meetings. ‘If someone calls it socialism, then we must compel them to acknowledge that the Bible must then promote socialism, because Jesus offered free health care to everyone, and he never charged a leper a co-pay.’

“DNC chair Tom Perez and others in audience gave a standing ovation before Barber took a shot at Republicans, saying, ‘If you want to have a moral debate, bring it on, baby.’

“‘The Bible says a nation will be judged by how it treats the poor and the sick and women and the immigrants,’ Barber said. ‘The Bible says that God makes it rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you want to call caring for folks socialism, then the Constitution is a socialist document because it calls us to promote the general welfare and to establish justice.’”

Well, as a Christian constitutional conservative I must admit, this absurdity is very comical to say the least. So here we go.

First of all, it is rather perplexing that the people who are incessantly raving about “separation of church and state” are invoking the Bible, and Jesus Christ, to promote socialism. How often do we hear the progressive, socialist left condemn Christians for attempting to create a “theocracy”, most recently Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? But you rarely hear leftists condemn Islamo-fascists for their theocracy, which, by the way, persecutes Christians.

I found it quite interesting that Rev. Barber failed to mention this Bible verse from 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (New International Version), “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” Hmm, maybe Rev. Barber does not seek a scripturally-based argument, but rather he prefers to just ad lib his way through … making the insidious assertion that Jesus Christ did not ask for a “co-pay.” I kinda think it a tad bit blasphemous to compare Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to a health insurance company.

Rev. Barber, sir, a moral debate, absolutely. I would be happy to enjoin you in such an intellectual engagement. I would present to you this Bible verse: Deuteronomy 30:15,19 (New International Version), “15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. … 19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”

Uh, pastor, and I use that term loosely here, perhaps you did not realize that you were speaking at the meeting of a political party that supports murdering unborn babies in the womb. As well, according to New York Governor Cuomo, it is not a party that embraces infanticide – in other words, the Canaanite god of child sacrifice, Moloch. As well, as a black “pastor,” how do you reconcile yourself knowing that since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, an estimated 20,000,000 black babies have been murdered in the womb? And I suppose you are okay with the progressive, socialist left’s support of the Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger?

Yes, sir, Rev. Barber. I am more than happy to have a “moral” debate with you.

I suppose the good Rev. Barber also has no issue with the progressive, socialist left’s position of gender, right? You know, we are now up to some 71 different genders. Obviously, Rev. Barber is comfortable telling the Judeo-Christian God that He was all wrong with just Adam and Eve?

And Rev. Barber, God only asks for 10 percent, so I guess since the Bible supports socialism, according to your cherry-picking scripture, then its okay for progressive socialists to demand seven, nine times more than God with demanding 70-90 percent tax rates. Hmm, I would prefer God’s tax rate over that of the progressive, socialist left … but do you?

Lastly, Rev. Barber, Christianity, you know, Jesus Christ, is based upon individual reconciliation, salvation and the Grace of God. No one can collectively enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, at least that is what I read in Romans. Socialism dismisses the existence of the individual. Individuals have no rights or liberties. There is only the collective determination, equality of outcomes, as dictated by man, secular humanists … the folks you had standing and cheering you. As a matter of fact, this is what 2 Corinthians 3:17 (New International Version) says, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

My spiritual liberty does not come from the government, or from the DNC. And as written by the father of classical liberalism, John Locke, my individual inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property are natural rights from my Creator, not Tom Perez, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Robert Francis O’Rourke, or any others in the long list of progressive socialist crew of collectivists.

In closing, ain’t it funny how the progressive, socialist left seeks out certain “Reverends” … Barber, Sharpton, and Jackson, to parrot their talking points by leveraging the Bible? My advice is that we dismiss these charlatans.

The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy about folks like Reverend William Barber in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (New International Version), “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

Allen West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. Mr. West is a Senior Fellow at the Media Research Center to support its mission to expose and neutralize liberal media bias. Mr. West also writes daily commentary on his personal website theoldschoolpatriot.com.

DONATE

(CNSNews.com) – President Donald Trump, asked for his view of climate change, said America’s wealth “is under its feet,” and he’s not going to squander it on “dreams” and “windmills.”

“What do you think the world should be doing about climate change, and do you still harbor…skepticism?” a reporter asked Trump at the final news conference of the G-7 summit on Monday.

“I feel that the United States has tremendous wealth,” Trump responded. “The wealth is under its feet. I’ve made that wealth come alive.”

Trump noted that the United States is now the world’s number-one energy producer, and he said production will only increase as more pipelines come online.

“It’s tremendous wealth,” Trump said, “and LNG (liquefied natural gas) is being sought after all over Europe and all over the world. We have more of it than anybody else.

“And I’m not going to lose that wealth. I’m not going to lose it on dreams, on windmills, which frankly aren’t working too well.”

Trump said he wants the “cleanest water” and “cleanest air” on earth. “That’s what we’re doing,” he continued:

And I’m an environmentalist. A lot of people don’t understand. I have done more environmental impact statements probably than anybody that’s — I guess I can say definitely, because I’ve done many, many, many of them. More than anybody that’s ever been president, or vice president, or anything even close to president.

And I think I know more about the environment than most people. I want clean air, I want clean water, I want a wealthy country, I want a spectacular country with jobs, with pensions, with so many things. And that’s what we’re getting. So I want to be very careful.

At the same time…it’s very important to me — very important to me — we have to maintain this incredible — this incredible place that we’ve all built.

We become a much richer country, and that’s a good thing, not a bad thing, because that great wealth allows us to take care of people. We can take care of people that we couldn’t have taken care of in the past because of the great wealth.

“We can’t let that wealth be taken away. Clean air, clean water — thank you very much everybody,” the president concluded, as an annoyed reporter shouted, “You didn’t answer the question!”

 

Actress Alison Brie used her public platform as a music video award presenter to lecture her viewing audience on her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution on Monday.

Brie declared enforcement of U.S. immigration law “unconstitutional” as she and her co-presenter conflated illegal and legal immigration, NewsBusters reports:

Who knew that a star of the show GLOW on Netflix was a constitutional scholar? She’s not, and yet, actress Alison Brie declared with certainty on the stage of the 2019 MTV Video Music Awards Monday night that what America is doing to immigrants is “unconstitutional and frankly disgusting.”

As Brie and singer French Montana presented the award for Best Latin Video, they conflated legal and illegal immigrants. While French Montoya wants to be the “voice” of immigrants, as one himself, and said, “we are the people that make this country,” he didn’t mention he legally immigrated. Brie chimed in, “What’s happening to immigrants in this country is unconstitutional and frankly disgusting.”

Her co-presenter then instructed the audience to applaud Brie’s constitutional analysis.

Read full story at NewsBusters.org.

 

 

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is the current name of an organization that originated in 1844 with the name Association of Medical Superintendents of American Institutions for the Insane.

Treatment of the insane presumably would be a worthy objective. As stated on the website of APA, “Psychiatry Online”:

American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the assessment and treatment of psychiatric disorders.

Treatment of the insane, therefore, does still appear to be on the APA’s agenda, 175 years after its founding. In order to treat the insane, those suffering from psychiatric disorders, any given patient or class of patients must be accurately assessed, to formulate an effective course of treatment. There’s the rub.

To accurately assess the psychiatric disorder of a patient or class of patients, it might be intuited to be desirable for those doing the assessment to possess some appreciable degree of mental health. That is to say, it would seem convenient, in order to arrive at a reliable assessment of the psychiatric disorder of some patient, if the psychiatrist conducting the assessment were, well, not insane. That seems a reasonable requirement.

That being the case, taking into consideration the range of behaviors which psychiatrists display, as well as the range of behaviors which they are willing to classify as alternative orientations, rather than as psychiatric disorders, one might hesitate to readily accept many psychiatrists as sufficiently mentally healthy to conduct valid assessments of the psychiatric disorders of others.

Take, for example, an editorial published by The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law on pedophilia. Perhaps the reader could stomach a review of the statements found in the editorial titled “Pedophilia and DSM-5: The Importance of Clearly Defining the Nature of a Pedophilic Disorder,” but perhaps not:

In the face of significant criticism of its inclusion in the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated its intention to remove the term Pedophilic Sexual Orientation from the diagnostic manual. Removing that term in response to public criticism would be a mistake. Experiencing ongoing sexual attractions to prepubescent children is, in essence, a form of sexual orientation, and acknowledging that reality can help to distinguish the mental makeup that is inherent to Pedophilia, from acts of child sexual abuse.

Essentially, the broader statement in the editorial differentiates between the individuals who merely lust after children, indulging in fantasies based on that lust through use of child pornography, and those who actually rape them. The distinction may mean to assuage the repulsion of those who are repulsed, but the implication that “just” indulging in fantasies of child rape is somehow not quite as reprehensible as child rape seems like a qualifier of insanity. Recall that the editorial was written by Frederick S. Berlin, an American psychiatrist and sexologist specializing in sex offenses. And consider that it contains many other statements.

The APA had altered its assessment of pedophilia, which it previously had classified as a psychiatric disorder, but later reclassified as an alternative sexual orientation, as Dr. Berlin pointed out. Due to controversy that arose over that questionable decision, some backpedaling occurred, and APA decided to remove the term “Pedophilic Sexual Orientation” from the manual altogether. So that makes everything all better, right? Hardly.

Read the manual, if you have the time, a handy supply of aspirins, and a strong streak of self-loathing. The reflections and observations found therein may be found by psychiatrists to be rational. And that fact is what others might classify as evidence.

Add to all this the fact that psychiatrists commit suicide at a rate at least five times that of the general public, and the image produced of psychiatrists is that of a group whose mental health is unquestionably lacking.

And yet these highly esteemed mental health professionals are those on whom America depends to assess the mental health and stability or psychiatric disorders of others.

 

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is the current name of an organization that originated in 1844 with the name Association of Medical Superintendents of American Institutions for the Insane.

Treatment of the insane presumably would be a worthy objective. As stated on the website of APA, “Psychiatry Online”:

American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the assessment and treatment of psychiatric disorders.

Treatment of the insane, therefore, does still appear to be on the APA’s agenda, 175 years after its founding. In order to treat the insane, those suffering from psychiatric disorders, any given patient or class of patients must be accurately assessed, to formulate an effective course of treatment. There’s the rub.

To accurately assess the psychiatric disorder of a patient or class of patients, it might be intuited to be desirable for those doing the assessment to possess some appreciable degree of mental health. That is to say, it would seem convenient, in order to arrive at a reliable assessment of the psychiatric disorder of some patient, if the psychiatrist conducting the assessment were, well, not insane. That seems a reasonable requirement.

That being the case, taking into consideration the range of behaviors which psychiatrists display, as well as the range of behaviors which they are willing to classify as alternative orientations, rather than as psychiatric disorders, one might hesitate to readily accept many psychiatrists as sufficiently mentally healthy to conduct valid assessments of the psychiatric disorders of others.

Take, for example, an editorial published by The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law on pedophilia. Perhaps the reader could stomach a review of the statements found in the editorial titled “Pedophilia and DSM-5: The Importance of Clearly Defining the Nature of a Pedophilic Disorder,” but perhaps not:

In the face of significant criticism of its inclusion in the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated its intention to remove the term Pedophilic Sexual Orientation from the diagnostic manual. Removing that term in response to public criticism would be a mistake. Experiencing ongoing sexual attractions to prepubescent children is, in essence, a form of sexual orientation, and acknowledging that reality can help to distinguish the mental makeup that is inherent to Pedophilia, from acts of child sexual abuse.

Essentially, the broader statement in the editorial differentiates between the individuals who merely lust after children, indulging in fantasies based on that lust through use of child pornography, and those who actually rape them. The distinction may mean to assuage the repulsion of those who are repulsed, but the implication that “just” indulging in fantasies of child rape is somehow not quite as reprehensible as child rape seems like a qualifier of insanity. Recall that the editorial was written by Frederick S. Berlin, an American psychiatrist and sexologist specializing in sex offenses. And consider that it contains many other statements.

The APA had altered its assessment of pedophilia, which it previously had classified as a psychiatric disorder, but later reclassified as an alternative sexual orientation, as Dr. Berlin pointed out. Due to controversy that arose over that questionable decision, some backpedaling occurred, and APA decided to remove the term “Pedophilic Sexual Orientation” from the manual altogether. So that makes everything all better, right? Hardly.

Read the manual, if you have the time, a handy supply of aspirins, and a strong streak of self-loathing. The reflections and observations found therein may be found by psychiatrists to be rational. And that fact is what others might classify as evidence.

Add to all this the fact that psychiatrists commit suicide at a rate at least five times that of the general public, and the image produced of psychiatrists is that of a group whose mental health is unquestionably lacking.

And yet these highly esteemed mental health professionals are those on whom America depends to assess the mental health and stability or psychiatric disorders of others.