A New York Moment: Ruby, Jules & Me
3 years ago
Fighting Liberal Terrorism
In the ongoing "Duck Dynasty" debate, the bigoted media at first planned to toxify Christianity as de facto bigotry. "Since the Bible is very clear about homosexual behavior," the thinking went. "We'll just get over that hump by declaring the Bible bigoted." Well, that only revealed the media as bigoted and backfired. So now the plan is to rewrite Jesus and the Bible. This simple-minded, anti-science meme apparently started at the Huffington Post.
CNN's Piers Morgan tried to further this nonsense the other night, and you can watch him get his clock cleaned by a Biblical scholar below:
Jesus never said anything as literal as "homosexuality is a sin." But in Matthew 19, Jesus made it extremely clear that marriage is between one man and one woman and that any sexual activity outside of that union is a sin:
Finally, it must be considered that Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally permissible marriage. He stated:Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).Gay or straight, the Bible does not discriminate. The sexual bar for Christians is very, very high.
The only people who might feel discriminated against are those of any sexual preference who base a large part of their personal identity on their sexuality. For my money, though, their biggest sin is being tedious, narcissistic bores.RELATED: Homosexuality is Condemned in the Bible!
Piers Morgan clearly has no qualms about inviting people on his show who fiercely disagree with him or even attack him personally, and tonight’s opening interview with radio host Larry Elder did not disappoint. Elder told Morgan his interview with George Zimmerman trial witness Rachel Jeantel was horrendous and “condescending,” and even told Morgan that he was being “stupid” for his assessment of Jeantel’s character.RELATED: Where Is Trayvon Martin’s Rolling Stone Cover?
On Tuesday, Elder sent out a series of angry tweets about Morgan’s interview with Jeantel, beginning with this one.
Elder went on at length about underreported crime in Chicago, which Morgan agreed with, but he kept going on, even calling Morgan a “bleeding heart liberal,” until Morgan nearly shouted, “If I could just get a word in, that’s be great.” He attempted to call Elder out for “ridiculous things” he said about Jeantel, but Elder went on the warpath again, leading Morgan to remark he’s not in a competition for the “greatest filibuster in my show’s history.”
Morgan pressed Elder on whether he thought Jeantel was “stupid,” but Elder repeatedly dismissed the question and continued complaining about the myriad attention the trial’s been getting. When Morgan said Zimmerman’s getting away with no punishment, Elder loudly contradicted him, saying “He’s a marked man!” and “He will never have a moment of peace!” Morgan shot back that at least Zimmerman can walk away alive, unlike Trayvon Martin.
They also got into a back-and-forth about Zimmerman himself, after Elder asserted that he’d want more Zimmermans in his community to prevent more Ariel Castros. Morgan shot back that he has teenage sons and thus wouldn’t like the idea of Zimmermans patrolling the streets, but Elder just snarked at Morgan that he lives in a gated community so he doesn’t have to worry about that anyway.
Morgan attempted to call out Elder for questioning Jeantel’s intelligence, grilling him about her educational background as opposed to his. Elder told Piers that he shouldn’t be “treat[ing] black people like children,” and went on another tangent in which he scolded Morgan, saying, “You ought to be ashamed of yourself!”
Elder insisted he never called her stupid–that was Morgan’s word–and continued to lecture Morgan about the real problems in the black community that the media has no interest in talking about.
Alleged Los Angeles shooter Christopher Jordan Dorner, influenced by left-leaning media coverage of gun crime in the wake of the Newtown shootings, has virtually paralyzed the City of Angels. Floyd Lee Corkins, a gunman incensed by anti-gay marriage bias after reading articles by the liberal advocacy group Southern Poverty Law Center, took a firearm into the Family Research Council’s headquarters with the intention of killing “as many as possible.” He hoped to smash Chick-fil-A sandwiches in the faces of as many corpses as he could. These shooters were clearly moved by left-wing media, and we should thank every benevolent force in the universe that they were. Had either shooter possessed even a tenuous link to a conservative group, a media-driven hysteria about the malevolent influence of right-wing broadcasters and commentators would be gripping the nation today. Fortunately, when a crazed shooter’s ideology is explicitly and demonstrably left-wing, the media displays admirable restraint about linking a gunman’s politics to their acts of violence.RELATED: Accused cop-killer left manifesto praising Obama, Hillary, Piers Morgan, gun control
The instinct by many high profile voices in the media to link violence to right-wing politics is not a new phenomenon, but it has enjoyed a renaissance since the tea party began to achieve political power. The broadcasters who subtly implicated former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the 2011 attack on a Democratic congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona, is indicative of this bias. CNN host Piers Morgan exemplifies the lamentable instinct to blame conservatism for senseless violence well.
In a November, 2011, interview with Mark Kelly, Morgan said he was shocked by the “extraordinary” fact that Palin did not reach out to former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) immediately after the shooting. Kelly agreed, saying that the infamous map on Palin’s website which featured targets over a variety of congressional districts that Republicans were “targeting” in that year’s midterm elections – an infraction which sparked a national uproar about the martial imagery employed by politicians since the time of Demosthenes – was “not the right thing to do.”
The implication was clear: Palin had some influence on the crazed gunman who shot up an impromptu meeting of a Congresswoman and her constituents. Palin’s crosshairs map had become a scapegoat for prominent voices from Paul Krugman to Randi Zuckerberg. It did not take much investigation into Loughner’s background to learn that he was not especially political, and was certainly not a fan of Palin’s. Nevertheless, nearly a year after this tragic incident, Morgan clung to that baseless charge.
Since the Newtown shooting, Morgan has been beating the drum about the need for stricter gun laws. His pro-gun control crusade made a deep impression on Dorner, who praised Morgan in his manifesto. So, having been specifically cited as someone who influenced Dorner, Morgan would engage in some introspection. Instead, he dismissed his influence on the L.A. shooter outright.
Morgan tweeted confidently — just hours after the manifesto in which Dorner praised not just Morgan but MSNBC’s programming and a proposed Assault Weapons Ban – that politics has “nothing to do” with Dorner’s rampage.
Unfortunately, the spectacularly wrong-headed approach the media took to assigning nonexistent motives to Loughner did not lead the media to impose some restraint on itself when opining on the politics of crazed shooters.
After Aurora, Colorado, shooter James Holmes attacked moviegoers this summer, ABC News reporter Brian Ross – minutes after the name of the suspect had been leaked to the press – sifted through the white pages to discover that there was one James Holmes in Colorado who happened to be a tea party activist. That incident forced ABC’s President Ben Sherwood to issue an apology.
In February, 2010, when the deranged Joseph Stack flew his Piper Cub into the headquarters of the Internal Revenue Service in Austin, Texas, few in the elite media waited for the dust to settle before blaming conservatism. “The First Tea Party Terrorist?” asked New York Times columnist Robert Wright.
Even though Wright had Stack’s online manifesto in hand – one in which he praises Marxist communism and laments the harsh excesses of American capitalism – Wright used a magicians sleight of hand to nevertheless link Stack to the tea party.
Was he a Tea Partier — or at least a Tea Party sympathizer? Conservatives who say no point to leftish themes in his manifesto. And it’s true that — in a line much-quoted by these conservatives — he seems to wish that the government would do something about health care. Then again, who doesn’t?When the facts make it impossible to indulge the instinct to link a violent extremist to the right – in Dorner and Corkins’ cases for example – the media displays appropriate caution about assigning political motives to their actions.
…
In the end, the core unifying theme of the Tea Partiers is populist rage, and this is the core theme in Stack’s ramblings, whether the rage is directed at corporate titans (“plunderers”), the government (“totalitarian”) or individual politicians (“liars”).
That is an laudable impulse. The motives that drive disturbed individuals to commit heinous acts of violence, whatever they are, should not be glorified. Dorner’s manifesto clearly indicates that the media, and its coverage of the gun control debate that has followed the Newtown massacre, influenced him significantly. A responsible media would take that into account and maybe, just maybe, ask what they may be doing to contribute to the increased incidences of mass shootings.
That is a national conversation that Americans deserve. Rest assured, if Dorner or Corkins had been influenced to commit their crimes by right-wing media outlets, we would get it. Sadly, that level of self-awareness is nowhere to be found in today’s media landscape.
Famed science TV host Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”) and Piers Morgan battled with climate skeptic Marc Morano last night on Morgan’s CNN program. The debate focused mainly on whether or not global warming is a manmade phenomenon, and both Morgan and Nye wholeheartedly disagreed with Morano’s skepticism on the subject.RELATED: Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Blasts Bill Nye and Piers Morgan for Their Global Warming Opinions
“If there is a massively increased acceleration in CO2 in the atmosphere at the same time that there’s been a bigger than double the sizing of the population of the planet, why would that not be inexorably linked?” Morgan pressed Morano at the outset. “Explain to me.”
“CO2 is rising. No one is disputing that,” Morano replied. “The question is what impact does CO2 have on the weather, what impact the CO2 have on climate change. And that, as we you look at the geologic records, we’ve had warmer periods where it’s been with lower CO2 and we’ve had colder periods with higher CO2…. The bottom line is hundreds of factors are dictating our climate.”
He continued: “So the idea that Bill Nye is just going around saying CO2 is up, therefore global warming is dangerous, we should be concerned, it’s not. It’s not dangerous. The bottom line is all these factors dwarfs the effects of CO2.”
Morgan interrupted, asking Morano to explain how New York just experienced the worst hurricane it has ever endured, among other recent freaky weather on both sides of the continent. “How do you explain that we’re getting so many of these freakish weather patterns if at the same time you’ve got all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere and all these people now guzzling up power and energy and emitting gases that weren’t there before?”
“You’re looking at anecdotal evidence,” Morano shot back, before taking a shot at Nye: “This is now the level of your daily horoscope. Basically global warmists like Bill Nye say global warming will cause many bad weather events and guess what? Bad weather events happen all the time so people look and they say look, there’s more proof, there’s a bad weather event.”
Appearing on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight last night, influential megachurch pastor Rick Warren said that being gay is like consuming poisonous arsenic… or having the desire to punch a man in the nose. Like homosexuality, both things are “natural,” Warren said, but we should never act upon them.
After a tense exchange over homosexuality and whether it is biological, Warren admitted that “it wouldn’t bother me if there was a ‘gay gene’ found,” because regardless of whether we deem it “natural,” it is still wrong.
He explained: “I have all kinds of natural feelings in my life and it doesn’t necessarily mean that I should act on every feeling. Sometimes I get angry and I feel like punching a guy in the nose. It doesn’t mean I act on it. Sometimes I feel attracted to women who are not my wife. I don’t act on it. Just because I have a feeling doesn’t make it right.”
“Not everything natural is good for me. Arsenic is natural,” he concluded.
Former teen heartthrob turned conservative opinionator Kirk Cameron visited Piers Morgan earlier in the week and talked faith and politics, though Morgan had to work to get some answers. When he did get answers on social issues, however, Cameron’s declaration that homosexuality was “ultimately destructive to so many foundations of civilization” left him somewhat shocked.
Cameron noted that he watched many people on cable news “to try to give me a clear picture to know as a father what to teach our kids,” and to that end, Morgan started quizzing him on social issues. “I feel like I just got imported into the Christine O’Donnell interview you did in August,” he replied, clearly uncomfortable, but eased up when Morgan explained that his question stemmed from a desire to know him as a father better. So he gave his position on gay marriage.
“Marriage was designed by God a long time ago… it’s almost as old as dirt. I would never attempt to redefine marriage.” When asked if he considered homosexuality a sin, he answered, “I think its unnatural, I think it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many foundations of civilization.” Morgan didn’t question it, but followed up asking what Cameron would do if his child were gay. “Just because you feel that way doesn’t mean you have to act on everything you feel,” he told Morgan. He footnoted his statements with the fact that “I believe all of us are sinful,” so the word meant only a human status. Morgan asked him also about abortion, which Cameron opposed in all circumstances, even in rape, saying that killing “a little creature made in God’s image” would be “compounding the problem.”
Cameron’s comments on homosexuality offended many, including GLAAD, which issued a statement and has put together a petition against Cameron:
“In this interview, Kirk Cameron sounds even more dated than his 1980s TV character,” said Herndon Graddick, Senior Director of Programs at GLAAD. “Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.”
Schlockumentary filmmaker Michael Moore is so hell-bent on being a leader of the Occupy Wall Street movement that he's willing to lie about his wealth on national television.
Appearing for the second time this month on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight Tuesday, Moore dishonestly pushed back on any suggestion that he's part of the top one percent in this nation who are millionaires:
Former Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell walked out of an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan today after the host asked her a question on gay marriage. “My first ever walk-out in 25 years of interviews,” Morgan said on Twitter after the exchange, which airs on Piers Morgan Tonight at 9 p.m. O’Donnell, who is promoting her new book, became uncomfortable when Morgan asked questions about politics. “You’re borderline being a little bit rude,” she tells Piers Morgan. “I think I’m being rather charming and respectful,” says Morgan.
On gay marriage, O’Donnell said she’s not running for office, and therefore would not address the issue. “Why are you being so weird?” Morgan asks. “I’m asking you questions based on your own public statements…it’s hardly rude to ask you that, surely.” She clearly didn’t agree, claiming that she was “being pulled away” from the interview by an off-camera handler.