Of these two, which headline about the same “study” do you guess was seen by more people?:

1. Children with same-sex parents happier and healthier than those from traditional families, study shows

2. Is Same-Sex Parenting Better for Kids? The New Australian Study Can’t Tell Us

BarbWire, the conservative news website, is posting an excerpt from #2, which is an article by Mark Regnerus published at the Public Discourse website. But the liberal press went gaga over this junk science news item and headlines like #1 were a lot easier to find. BarbWire contributor Bill Muehlenberg, who lives in Australia, also addresses this controversy on BarbWire today.

If too many Americans remain low information voters it’s not for a lack of good information — the problem is one or reach. Those of us who know how the political left and the liberal media lie must continue to reach more of our fellow citizens with the truth. We must fight harder in the information war.

On this topic of same-sex parenting, by the way, on the web page where the #2 article is posted are found these important articles — they’re all well worth your time and need wide dissemination:

The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim
By Ana Samuel

Mark Regnerus and the Storm over the New Family Structures Study
By Matthew J. Franck

The Vindication of Mark Regnerus
By Matthew J. Franck

A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada
By Mark Regnerus

Here are two more articles at the Public Discourse website written by BarbWire contributor Robert Oscar Lopez:

Same-Sex Parenting: Child Abuse?
Single-parenting and divorce have always been understood as a breakdown of the married mom and dad ideal, but the demand to view same-sex parenting as “normal” imposes a silence on children about the wound caused by the loss of one parent or the other.

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View
The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange.

It’s the same on every single issue — conservatives have plenty of ammo — they need only use it more effectively.

It is not complete until you see the new movie, America; Imagine a World Without Her, from author Dinesh D’Souza.  I had the opportunity to see this documentary based upon the new book by the same name.  Incidentally, D’Souza’s book is now selling twice as well as former First Lady Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices.   The movie also had a very strong opening at number ten with only 1,000 theater showings competing with many films that had around 3,000 screens. 
 
The very engaging and well-made movie is extremely important, particularly for young people, millions of whom have been misled about the history of America.  The film is a very honest and fair look at five common historical criticisms of America that liberals have successfully propagated through authors like Howard Zinn’s multi-million selling, People’s History of the United States, which is used by numerous high schools and colleges. 
 
Notions like, “America was built upon slavery and stolen lands” is an increasingly common view.  It may explain why a new Pew survey has found that a full 60 percent of Americans who consider themselves, “liberal” say that they are not proud to be Americans.  By contrast Pew found that around 80 percent of “conservatives” say that they are proud to be Americans.  This second group also places a far greater value on virtues of honor and duty according to Pew.
 
Far from being merely a snarky political smear over patriotism, a negative view of America has a very dangerous side.  It helps to propel those forces which want to “fundamentally transform” America into something our founders never intended and something that would never be “a shining city on a hill” to the world.
 
America is very intellectually engaging, much like hearing a good college professor.  While there are clearly some disturbing beliefs discussed in the film, there is also a great deal of uplifting patriotism and imagery in the movie.  It is not as heavy or discouraging as D’Souza’s 2016 movie.   America is a film that I would strongly recommend your seeing and supporting in theaters now to help with its distribution to more screens and for future DVD sales both of which will help with spreading the important messages of the movie. 

You can view the trailer and find a theater near you HERE.

Written by Anugrah Kumar

The New York Times is being criticized for having double standard by allowing a full-page ad by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) against the Catholic Church in response to the Hobby Lobby decision, while the newspaper had rejected an “anti-Muslim” ad in 2012.

“Remember when the New York Times rejected an ad aimed at one religion?” asks journalist David Harsanyi of The Federalist on Twitter, with a link to the Think Progress blog post from 2012 that drew attention to how the newspaper “rejected a full-page anti-Islam advertisement submitted by anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.”

But on Thursday, the Times carried an FFRF ad denouncing “all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority” on the Supreme Court for its decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

The Times had responded to the “anti-Muslim” ad submission. And the Media Research Center quotes Geller as describing the newspaper’s response: “Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to inflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in ‘a few months.'”

Matthew Balan, a news analyst at MRC, notes that while the Times is entitled to choose what ads to run, its response simply proves one of Geller’s points that “almost no Catholics are likely to respond violently even to harsh criticism of the Catholic Church – but enough Muslims are likely to respond violently to harsh criticism of Islam (whether the response is against the critic or against others) that the Times itself views such criticism as unsafe.”

There are plenty of peace-loving Muslims, but “unfortunately there are also enough extremist Muslim thugs to affect what the Times is willing to publish,” Balan adds. 

In a statement, Catholic League‘s Bill Donahue on Tuesday cited examples of “the reaction of bigots to the Hobby Lobby case.”

“‘Court’s Catholic Justices Attack Women’s Rights’ is the headline of Margery Eagan’s Boston Herald article (it’s those Catholics again). The American Humanist Association issued a statement with a picture of a rosary next to birth control pills. Cute,” Donahue said.

He also referred to The Huffington Post, in which Ryan Grim noted that “these men [the five judges who voted for religious liberty] are Christians.” He also said, “The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Christian business owners are special.”

Donahue concluded by saying, “Catholics are 25 percent of the population and comprise two-thirds of the high court. Jews are 1.8 percent of the population and comprise one-third of the high court. Note: only the former is a problem.”

This article was originally posted at the Christian Post website.

Written by James Simpson

Once again, President Barack Obama is circumventing Congress and using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a compliant and corrupt media to push his radical agenda. This time it is to save the world from climate change, formerly known as global warming at a time when there was actual evidence that the average global temperature was increasing, however slightly. But that was nearly two decades ago. Let’s set the matter straight, shall we?

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is a colorless, odorless “greenhouse gas” which currently comprises 400 parts per million (ppm), that is 0.04 percent of all atmospheric gasses—an infinitesimal amount. CO₂concentration has increased by about 40 percent, or 120 ppm, (0.012 percent of atmospheric gasses) over the last 200 or so years. During that time, world mean temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

Global warming alarmists have used these observations to warn of future calamity. Many predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, or other effects including “flooding, drought, erosion, turbidity, debris in reservoirs, nutrient and pollutant loading, and wildfires.” The National Wildlife Federation claims that “Global warming is making hot days hotter, rainfall and flooding heavier, hurricanes stronger and droughts more severe.” Don’t worry, though. Barack Obama promised to fix it all. Demonstrating early on his almost delusional arrogance, then-candidate Obama accepted his party’s 2008 presidential nomination claiming, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal…”

In fact, weather has not become more intense. Despite severe tornado damage from recent storms, the number of tornadoes in the past year is the lowest since 1954, and there has been no discernible upward trend in recent years. Similarly, as of June 10^th, the U.S. has not experienced a category three or higher hurricane for 2,787 days—a record. Wildfires are at their lowest since 1985, and again, this is not an anomaly. There is no discernible trend.

But even respected journals like National Geographic are playing fast and loose with the facts. On its “Global Warming Fast Facts” page, NG claims “Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.” But when you click through to the link, there is no mention of bears at all. Actually, Al Gore’s beloved bruins are doing just fine. A recent analysis found that since 2001, polar bear populations have increased, and that official estimates could have under-counted by as much as 9,000 animals. Canada has refused to put bears on their endangered species list despite pressure from U.S. environmental groups.

Global warming alarmists also keep insisting that there is a “consensus” that 97 percent of scientists believe man made global warming exists and is an existential threat. Even NASA gets into the act, claiming that “97% of climate scientists agree.” The media have uncritically shouted the 97 percent shibboleth to the four corners of the globe, viciously attacking anyone who has the temerity to question it. A Talking Points Memo post demanded that “climate change deniers” be executed. An Austrian university musicology professor (what are his qualifications?), who ironically claims to oppose the death penalty, echoed the call. He did later apologize for it, however.

Even former NASA climate guru James Hansen has said that oil executives should face criminal trials for spreading doubt about global warming. This is the same James Hansen caught in the “ClimateGate” scandal, where he and climate scientists of the UK’s East Anglia University Climate Research Unit deliberately manipulated world temperature data to support global warming claims. Most notoriously, Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick,” graph was found to be the result of a flawed study by Penn State University’s Michael Mann. No trials for Hansen, Mann or Gore yet, though.

Just like their other claims, the 97 percent figure has been widely debunked. Even the IPCC’s lead author, Dr. Richard Tol mocks the 97 percent figure. He states, “People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97 percent consensus paper.” He refers to a report authored by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and others that examined 11,944 “climate abstracts” in the scientific literature. But the authors of that study themselves found otherwise, noting that “66.4 percent of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6 percent endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected AGW and 0.3 percent were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” In other words, examining the abstracts alone found only 32.6 percent supported the notion of man-caused global warming. The 97 percent figure was derived by comparing the 32.6 percent with those who rejected (0.7 percent) or were unsure (0.3 percent), and essentially ignoring the rest.

In another study, authors claimed to have surveyed over 10,000 “earth scientists,” finding again that 97 percent agreed. Upon closer inspection however, one discovers that less than a third actually responded and that the survey was further stratified to analyze “climatologists who are active publishers on climate change.” That subset yielded only 77 respondents, 75 of whom responded positively to the question, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The 97 percent figure was thus based on only 77 people.

Meanwhile, a 2009 petition received over 31,000 signatures—more than any other petition on this subject—from physicists and physical chemists who agreed with the statement, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of … carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Most of the alarmist crowd has a strong vested interest in hyping global warming because they are being showered with research dollars to prove it. But cooler heads have remained resolutely skeptical, and for good reason. It is difficult, for example, to reconcile a 2009 study which found that a reduction in atmospheric CO₂ levels to 760 ppm, 34 million years ago, caused Antarctica to freeze over, with the modern arguments that: 1) current CO₂ levels half that high are causing Arctic ice to melt; and 2) CO₂ levels are at record highs, which some claim to be the “maximum safe limit.” Maybe CO₂ killed the dinosaurs too?

Meanwhile, as shown in the chart above, the average global temperature has not risen in 17 years, even trending downward since 2002, while CO₂ continues to rise—a fact which directly contradicts climate alarmists’ stated claims. A September 2013 report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) struggled to hide this seeming anomaly, and the organization was pressured by the U.S., Germany and other countries to do so. MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen characterized the IPCC report as “hilarious incoherence.” A 2012 study published in Nature magazine shows that global temperatures have not been historically high over the long term, even suggesting a downward trend.

Just for the sake of argument, however, we are going to completely ignore the foregoing and engage in a thought experiment. We will grant the left every single one of its assumptions. Nothing soothes lunatics more than to tell them they are “right,” so let’s suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend they are.

Let’s generously assume that all of the CO₂ increase since colonial times was caused by man’s activity, and that 80 percent of it occurred after 1900. That would mean that man’s activity since 1900 increased atmospheric CO₂ by 96 ppm; (120 ppm x 0.8). This represents 0.0096 percent of all atmospheric gasses. Let’s further assume the 1°C temperature increase was also solely caused by CO₂, and that 80 percent (0.8°C) of that 1-degree change occurred in the 20^th Century. (The actual temperature increase since 1900 is estimated to have been between 0.6 and 0.8°C.)

We will also generously assume that all along the U.S. has been responsible for 20 percent of these global emissions. This is somewhat more than our current contribution (16 percent in 2010, according to the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.) If the 20 percent figure were accurate, however, it would mean that over the past 114 years, America has been responsible for an increase in atmospheric CO₂ of 19.2 ppm (96 ppm x 0.2). That’s 0.00192 percent of all atmospheric gasses. If the relationship between CO₂ and temperature holds, we would therefore be responsible for 20 percent of the 0.8°C increase in global temperature since 1900, which equates to 0.16°C (0.29°F).

So if we buy the Left’s argument entirely, the big, bad US of A, the imperialist destroyer of the global environment, promiscuously burning excessive carbon fuels to satisfy its gluttonous, ravenous, insatiable appetite for warmth, air conditioning and automatic dishwashers, has raised global temperatures over the last 100 years a whopping one third of one degree Fahrenheit.

But here is where it gets truly insane. The Obama administration and its allies are telling us that reducing CO₂ emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent will bring a cornucopia of benefits, and they are willing to destroy the entire coal industry and force other conventional energy sources onto life support to accomplish this. However, power plants targeted by this rule produce only 38 percent of total U.S. manmade CO₂, and half this target has already been met.

So in actuality, total U.S. CO₂ will be reduced by only 5.7 percent (1/2 x 0.3 x 0.38) under this rule. This translates to a mere 1.026 ppm (0.057 x 18 ppm) representing 0.0001026 percent of atmospheric CO₂, for a temperature reduction of—wait for it—0.00912°C (0.16°C x 0.057). Converting to Fahrenheit yields 0.01642°F. Another way of saying this is that, if we are to take the left’s argument at face value, the average world temperature would decline from its historic average of 54.8°F to 54.784°F. That is less than three one-hundredths of one degree.

Liberalism is a mental illness.

But even this doesn’t tell the whole story. Our example assumes that all the recent climate change is due to man’s production of carbon dioxide. There are many so-called greenhouse gasses, and CO₂ does not have the greatest impact; water vapor does. See the chart below.

Source: RealClimate.Org

Furthermore, temperature has been increasing and decreasing in regular cycles over the past two hundred years. According to Friends of Science, a non-profit group comprised of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals, “The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration lists China as the largest coal producer and consumer in the world, producing almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined, and almost four times more than the U.S. In 2012, China consumed 49 percent of the world coal supply, compared to 11 percent by the U.S. Over the past 10 years, Chinese coal consumption has accounted for 83 percent of increased demand. Thus, it is not surprising that China is the world’s largest producer of anthropogenic CO₂, contributing 24.7 percent of the world’s total in 2010, the latest data available. This is 53 percent more than the U.S. produces, and China has no intention of slowing down. Current use and anticipated increases in carbon fuel use by China promises to swamp any decrease the U.S. is able to obtain.

In a Congressional hearing last September, EPA Director Gina McCarthy could not list a single effect EPA actions were having on any of 26 indicators of climate change, admitting, “It’s unlikely that any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible impact on any those [indicators]—a visible change in any of those [indicators].” Her rationale was that it “positions the U.S. for leadership on this issue,” that could be used to prompt other nations to take action. But has the U.S. had any success influencing China on any front at all? How about Russia or India, who together produce 11 percent of worldwide emissions? The EPA acknowledges the rule will have no impact on atmospheric CO₂.

When the rule was finally announced, however, the EPA claimed it would bring copious benefits. Most media outlets and leftwing organizations sang its praises. The Union of Concerned Scientists called it a “climate game changer.” They compared Director McCarthy to Thomas Jefferson “at the Dawn of America,” and the EPA rule with the Declaration of Independence.

Most media ignored the serious economic impacts this rule will likely create. The Heritage Foundation estimates a loss of over 500,000 jobs, a decline in average family income by $1,000 and a 20 percent increase in energy costs. The EPA acknowledged that electricity rates will rise, but if we can hold out until 2030, they assure us that prices will fall after that. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed compliance costs for the new rule could exceed $50 billion per year. The Natural Resources Defense Council sides with EPA, claiming a maximum cost of $14.6 billion by 2020 with offsetting benefits between $37 and $60 billion. The liberal Brookings Institution, however, dismisses EPA’s claimed benefits as being exaggerated by as much as 15 times.

Other liberals acknowledge the scam but support it anyway. Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Steward said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” For comparison, the most expensive EPA regulation to date addresses mercury and costs $9.6 billion per year. The carbon regulation will have a much broader impact on our economy.

Other countries are beginning to recognize the global warming lunacy for what it is: an opportunity for well-connected liberals to fleece their nations’ treasuries in the name of “saving the planet.” In my previous article, Germany’s energy chief, Stephan Kohler, was quoted as calling Germany’s Renewable Energy Act “sheer lunacy.” Newly elected Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is now is cultivating an alliance with Canada, Britain, New Zealand and India in an effort to oppose Obama’s call for onerous carbon regulation.

The EPA rule is sheer lunacy.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

Fox News Channel host, Gretchen Carlson, is praising the work environment at the network that she says allows her to express her values. She made her comments at a faith-based entertainment summit in Beverly Hills, California.

At the recent “Purpose: The Family Entertainment & Faith-Based Summit,” Carlson said she thinks it is wonderful to be able to stand-up for values that she’s embraced most of her life.

Carlson, who hosts FNC’s “The Real Story,” makes her movie debut in Persecuted, a Christian-based thriller, in which she plays the role of a TV show anchor.

“I think there is something about being over 40 where you don’t really care what other people think about it anymore,” she tells OneNewsNow. “I’m well past that now. I have two children and I want them to grow up in a world like I did. So I think it is really important to be part of a movie that focuses on those values.”

As a member of the Fox News lineup, Carlson contends it’s not only the first media organization where she’s felt comfortable expressing her values and even feels encouraged to do so.

“Since I’ve been there the last nine years, it’s just been a really wonderful place to be,” she says. “People come up to me on the street and say, ‘Thank you so much for talking about your morals and values. That’s what we respect.’ It’s not necessarily about all the news stories that I’m doing on a daily basis – it’s more about the other messaging about my life. And that means a lot to me. I think my grandfather would be proud. He was a minister.”

Carlson moderated a summit panel of film producers about the nuts and bolts of how to turn a great idea into a fully formed and released film project as well as discussing the growing faith-based movie landscape.

NYT columnist says she was ‘curled up in a hallucinatory state’ for eight hours

Maureen Dowd of The New York Times has attracted attention with her column about eating a marijuana candy bar and remaining in “a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours,” as she began “panting” and becoming “paranoid.” Some commentators are laughing about it. Not so funny are the reports of deaths from ingesting marijuana that Dowd cites in her column about marijuana legalization in Colorado.

“In March,” she noted, “a 19-year-old Wyoming college student jumped off a Denver hotel balcony after eating a pot cookie with 65 milligrams of THC. In April, a Denver man ate pot-infused Karma Kandy and began talking like it was the end of the world, scaring his wife and three kids. Then he retrieved a handgun from a safe and killed his wife while she was on the phone with an emergency dispatcher.”

The Wyoming college student, 19-year-old Levy Thamba Pongi, was an exchange student from Congo. Richard Kirk is the Denver man who killed his wife, Khristine Kirk, with a gunshot to her head.

“Two Denver deaths tied to recreational marijuana use” was the headline over an Associated Press story. It didn’t take long for the claim that marijuana never killed anybody to be debunked.

Regarding her own experience with the drug, Dowd said, “As my paranoia deepened, I became convinced that I had died and no one was telling me.”

I discussed both of the deaths cited in the Dowd column in my May 1^st column, “Colombians Move into Colorado Marijuana Business.” On March 27th, we ran the column, “Media Continue Cover-up of Marijuana-induced Mental Illness.”

Nevertheless, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted 219-189 to block Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) raids on so-called “medical marijuana” businesses. The Marijuana Policy Project reports that U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), its “longtime ally,” led the charge to protect the marijuana businesses in Colorado and other states. It passed mostly with liberal Democratic votes.

“Already in Colorado, there is evidence of Colombian cartel involvement in the legal medical marijuana industry,” notes the group called Smart Approaches to Marijuana, whose co-founder, drug policy expert Kevin A. Sabet, recently authored the book, Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana.

But now that liberal columnist Maureen Dowd has tackled the subject in a serious manner, connecting the dots between marijuana and mental problems, others in the media may follow suit and the rush to legalize the drug may encounter difficulties.

Most of the media reaction to Dowd, at least so far, has been amusement. On the NBC Today Show, the hosts joked and laughed about marijuana’s effects as the words, “All the pot fit to eat,” were featured on the TV screen. It was a play on words from the Times’ slogan, “All the news that’s fit to print.”

Dr. Christine Miller, who has written about the relationship between marijuana and mental illness, says, “What’s so funny about it? She [Dowd] was out of her mind.”

“I was saddened to see Matt Lauer and The Today Show crew make light of Maureen Dowd’s experience, particularly in view of the fact that the symptoms she experienced were not dissimilar to those that prompted the young college student to jump off a Denver hotel balcony after eating a pot-laced brownie,” Miller told AIM. “Matt or his co-hosts really should interview the Congolese family of that student, who must be devastated that their efforts to offer their young man a more promising future were dashed in such a manner. That would be a story worthy of our national attention.”

A powerful new book, A Voice out of Nowhere, takes the controversy to another level and may change some minds about marijuana being a so-called “soft” drug. It tells the true story of Bruce Blackman, a 22-year-old man who murdered six members of his family while under the influence of marijuana. Psychiatrists said Blackman’s marijuana addiction was a contributing factor in his psychotic break from reality and mass murder spree.

The author, Janice Holly Booth, predicts violence will increase as a result of legalization. “Once legally available, the temptation to try it is no longer tempered by concerns about breaking the law,” she says. “I think we’ll see an increase in the number of young people with as-yet undiagnosed mental illness using and abusing marijuana, and—unfortunately—a subsequent rise in violent crimes committed by them.”

Jack Healy, the Rocky Mountain correspondent for The New York Times, wrote a June 1 piece, “After 5 Months of Sales, Colorado Sees the Downside of a Legal High,” that looked at several problems caused by legalization.

But he also reported that violent crime was down. He said, “Marijuana supporters note that violent crimes in Denver—where the bulk of Colorado’s pot retailers are—are down so far this year. The number of robberies from January through April fell by 4.8 percent from the same time in 2013, and assaults were down by 3.7 percent. Over-all, crime in Denver is down by about 10 percent, though it is impossible to say whether changes to marijuana laws played any role in that decline.”

Miller believes the city of Denver is giving out misleading statistics to many news outlets, including the Times. She says there is a discrepancy in the data reported by the city and what is online from the police department.

Miller speculates that the city of Denver “wants to put its best foot forward now that the summer tourist season is just taking off.” Miller, who lives in Baltimore, Maryland, added, “It reminds me of how a certain mayor of Baltimore, Martin O’Malley, restructured the categories for reporting of murder rates here, showing a nice decline after he took office.” O’Malley went on to become governor.

“In fact,” Miller says about Denver, “overall crime has gone up. You will also see that crimes against persons have gone up 26.6 percent (particularly note the disorderly conduct arrests, up 10-fold and trespassing charges up 5-fold!). It is important to keep in mind that legalization of recreational marijuana possession and use was enacted on January 1, 2013, and murder rates jumped 50 percent during the first quarter of that year. Legalization of recreational sales was enacted January 1, 2014. If the murder rate and other violent crimes have fallen in the first quarter of 2014, they were falling from a higher point. Only more time will tell what the real trends will prove to be.”

The drug legalization movement has been mostly funded by “dark money” leftist billionaires such as George Soros. However, the libertarian Cato Institute has emerged as a big part of the campaign.

Jeffrey Miron of the Cato Institute thinks that marijuana is harmless and dismisses Kevin Sabet’s claim that people can become addicted to marijuana bysaying, “…who cares? Addiction is not, per se, a problem for society or an individual; just think about how many people are addicted to caffeine.”

The 2012 annual report of the Cato Institute (page 19) continues to show financial support from the Soros-funded Open Society Foundations, as well as the Marijuana Policy Project, BB&T, Facebook, Google and Whole Foods.

Interestingly, Cato once published a pro-drug legalization report by Glenn Greenwald, the columnist who would later became a mouthpiece for NSA leaker Edward Snowden. Cato has also distributed a podcast with Greenwald about his anti-NSA campaign.

Some of Cato’s more conservative funders may not be aware of how the organization got into bed with the Soros-funded left.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

How do we know that Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn is foolish? Well, let’s take a look at Sunday’s column and count the ways:

1.) He believes that the same-sex marriage debate will “fade into history.” 

2.) He believes that “ten years from now, when a betrothed or married couple is same-sex, it will be just as matter of fact as to a couple today being interfaith or interracial.” 

3.) He apparently thinks the elimination of sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage can change non-marriages into real marriages as opposed to merely unions recognized as marriages. 

4.) He has a fanciful notion that it is “progress” for the government to recognize same-sex unions as “marriages.”  

5.) Zorn’s belief that if six, or seven, or 40 judges overturn the will, knowledge, and collective wisdom of thousands of Americans—many of whom could likely run intellectual circles around these hubristic judges—means next to nothing in regard to the ontological reality of marriage. What judicial hubris tells us is that we’re fast becoming a nation untethered to either the Constitution or truth. And in the process, we the people are losing both our freedoms—chief among them the free exercise of religion—and our capacity to govern ourselves. 

6.) Those former supporters of true marriage who, in Zorn’s words, “have quietly folded up their tents” should be ashamed and are as culpable for the cultural damage done, including the impending persecution of dissidents and the suffering of children, as Zorn and his accomplices. While Zorn and his ideological ilk foolishly gloat, children, like the “banished babies of Ireland” are intentionally severed from their mothers or fathers. Christians have a responsibility to stand boldly for the rights of children no matter the personal cost. 

More important, any church leader or lay person who folds up his tent, either abandoning God’s design for marriage and sexuality or abandoning a persistent and courageous explication of them will eventually lose respect for the authority of Scripture in other areas of life. And the abandonment of faith in the authority of Scripture undermines the entire American project which, as Eric Metaxas and others explain, depends on virtue, which in turn depends on faith.

Here are some other truths of which Zorn (and scores of foolish Americans like him) seems profoundly ignorant:

• Homosexuality per se bears no points of correspondence to skin color. In other words, they are not analogous. 

• Legalized same-sex “marriage” per se bears no points of correspondence to interracial marriage. In other words, they are not analogous. 

• The belief that marriage is inherently sexually complementary is no more hateful than the belief that marriage is inherently binary. 

• The government’s legal recognition of only sexually complementary unions as marriages no more denies citizens the “right” to marry than does the government’s legal recognition of only unions between two people not closely related by blood denies citizens the right to marry. 

• Claiming that marriage is solely about who loves whom with no connection to reproductive potential  necessarily means legalizing plural marriages and incestuous marriages. Actually, if marriage is solely constituted by the presence of intense loving feelings with no connection to reproductive potential, then there is no reason for government involvement at all. The government has zero vested interest in recognizing, affirming, regulating, or promoting deeply loving inherently non-reproductive types of relationships. 
  
  There is no more government interest or public value in affirming and recognizing as marriages those sterile homoerotic unions than there is in affirming other deeply loving relationships like platonic friendships. Homosexual couples cannot suddenly justify their unions as “marriages” simply based on the presence of children, because they’ve already argued that marriage has no connection to children. There are many people in all sorts of relationship configurations that are raising children. If it’s the mere presence of children that makes a union deserving of being called a “marriage,” then any two or more people raising children together should be allowed to marry—or at least any two or more who really love each other.

No, the debate will never go away. Legally recognizing homoerotic unions as marriages is as profoundly wrong as were legal prohibitions of interracial marriage. While prohibitions of interracial marriage were based on the false belief that blacks and whites are inherently different, prohibitions of same-sex “marriage” are based on the true belief that men and women are different and that those differences have meaning for the public good.

No, the debate over the nature of marriage and the government’s recognition and regulation of marriage will never go away. If “progressives”—our current public censors—don’t ban dissent on issues related to homoerotic identity politics, this debate, like the one over legalized feticide, will persist.

Protecting true marriage is second only to protecting the lives of the least among us in terms of its importance to the health and welfare of this once great nation. The twin moral crimes of legalizing the slaughter of the unborn and legally recognizing homoerotic unions as “marriages” are dramatic manifestations of the enmity between unsaved man and God.  

This issue will remain until the end of this great nation or the end of redemptive history, whichever comes first. 

Stand with Illinois Family Institute! 

Written by Steve Baldwin

Over the last few years we have witnessed a headlong rush by many conservatives in the media in support of various aspects of the homosexual agenda. Some were socially liberal all along and some appear to be pushed into such a position due to pressure upon them by their colleagues or the media corporations they work for. Regardless, it is disturbing to witness their willingness to go along with this trend without even questioning the cultural impact such issues will have. Frankly, it is embarrassing how ignorant many of “our” conservative media stars are when it comes to the homosexual agenda.

Indeed, even Fox News has ignored huge stories that reflect negatively on the homosexual movement and the few times they do cover such stories, it is oftentimes inaccurate or incomplete. I wince as I watch Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Dana Perino, Bernie Goldberg, Mary Catherine Hamm, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith, Margaret Hoover and others use the same arguments used by the homosexual community even to the point of using the exact same phrases and buzz words. They should know better.

For example, many media conservatives happily use the term “gay” or “gay rights” and the phrase that he or she “has come out of the closet.” However, such wording assumes people are born homosexual, a myth that not even the pro-homosexual American Psychiatrist Association will support anymore. After years of research, dozens of pro-homosexual scientists have failed to find the homosexual gene and the few that did claim to find it were later discredited for engaging in fraudulent or sloppy methodology. Moreover, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, enlisted over 150 of the world’s top geneticists to decode the human genome and they could not find a “gay” gene. It simply does not exist.

Let’s be clear here so that the Fox News crew understands. No one is “gay” or born “gay.” Instead, people engage in homosexual behavior period. No one “comes out of the closet.” Rather they are simply choosing to publicize their homosexual behavior. Further evidence that homosexuality is NOT genetic is the fluidness of homosexual behavior. As many as a third of homosexuals revert back to heterosexuality as Kinsey, Masters & Johnson and numerous other liberal sex researchers have all reported.

Moreover, the very existence of thousands of ex-homosexuals in America demonstrate how tentative homosexuality really is. And yes, due to the addictive nature of homosexual behavior, some ex-homosexuals do relapse just as some drug addicts, alcoholics and others enslaved to addictive behaviors do. No big surprise here.

However, if homosexuality is not genetic and not permanent, it is therefore caused by environmental and behavioral issues that are clearly not comparable to inborn traits like race or gender. So why are we creating a plethora of new laws based upon a sexual behavior? Let’s be clear about homosexual “rights” laws. Most of them are illegal in the sense that they have created legal scenarios that are increasingly violating the real constitutional rights of Americans.

Whenever one creates artificial rights based upon a particular behavior one is not born with, such “rights” generally come at the expense of real constitutional rights. One wouldn’t know it from watching or reading the news, but the “gay rights” movement has launched the greatest assault on our constitutional rights in our country’s history. Let me quickly summarize the various battlefronts:

Freedom of Speech/Press

• Americans all over the country are receiving death threats for speaking out against homosexual marriage.
• Students have been suspended from schools for voicing traditional views on marriage or wearing shirts with slogans such as “Straight Pride” Meanwhile homosexual students are allowed to wear “gay pride” t-shirts.
• College professors have been fired for teaching traditional sexuality viewpoints.
• A Dire Straits song was banned in Canada that contains an alleged slur about homosexuals. Similar laws are on the way in the USA.
• Teachers and others have lost jobs for opposing the homosexual agenda on Face book on their private time.
• The internet dating website eHarmony has been sued for not including same-sex couples.
• YouTube has pulled videos critical of the homosexual agenda.
• A person was detained at the Canadian border for possessing an article by this author that simply repeated the pro-pedophile statements and actions by some homosexual leaders.
• The Obama DOJ has issued a ruling that orders federal employees to promote “Gay Pride Month.” Incredibly, it states that “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”
• Efforts are underway to ban actors and reality show stars like Phil Robertson for holding traditional views on sexuality.

Voting Rights/Political Participation

• Donors to pro-traditional marriage initiatives are being harassed, threatened with death, and losing jobs and business. Just recently, the CEO of Mozilla was fired due to contributing to a pro-traditional marriage initiative in California six years earlier.
• In at least a dozen states, pro- traditional marriage activists have been physically attacked and injured for passing out material in support of traditional marriage propositions.

Applying Justice Unequally

• Hate crime laws are being passed by states all over the country that set up a two-tier approach to enforcing our laws. If a person assaults a crippled woman in a wheel chair and then assaults a homosexual, he will receive a heavier sentence for the latter crime. Creating different penalties for the same crime based upon the sexual behavior of the victim is clearly unconstitutional. It is also is predicated on knowing what’s in the heart of the person committing the crime, something prosecutors can never really know. Again, this is a thought-police type law and clearly a dangerous precedent.

Freedom of Religion

• All over America Christian property owners are being harassed for refusing to rent to homosexuals and transsexuals, despite their moral objection to this lifestyle.
• State governments and courts are forcing businesses – such as wedding cake makers – to do business with homosexual couples. But no one is forcing black businesses to work with racists.
• State governments have fined Christian photographers because they refused to photograph homosexual weddings. But would a state fine a Jewish printer for refusing to print a Nazi brochure? Of course not.
• Christian-based adoption agencies are being ordered by state governments to place children with homosexual families despite strong evidence that such families do NOT give the child the proper nurturing normal families provide.
• Throughout the country, pastors who preach traditional morality are receiving death threats and their churches are being victimized with property damage.
• Pastors in Canada and Europe are being fined and/or arrested for simply preaching what the Bible clearly teaches us about homosexual behavior. It is just a matter of time before this occurs in America.
• An American pastor is being sued by a foreign homosexual group for a sermon that simply repeated the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality.
• People who hold views in opposition to the homosexual agenda are being denied employment by government agencies.
  Christians have lost private sector jobs for expressing views against the homosexual agenda in private forums that have nothing to do with their jobs.
• Private Christian schools are being sued for refusing to hire homosexuals.
• The Federal ENDA law will result in a tidal wave of litigation against Christian businesspersons and women for simply living out their religious beliefs.

Public Safety

• Schools are initiating dozens of new pro-homosexual programs designed to promote the homosexual lifestyle to children as young as kindergartner age. This despite overwhelming evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is extremely dangerous and shortens one’s lifespan.
• State laws are being passed around the country allowing males who claim to have feminine feelings to enter female bathrooms, thereby setting up situations that will lead to sexual assaults.
• Macy’s has fired an employee for preventing a cross-dressing man from using the women’s dressing room.
• The Obama Administration has issued a federal regulation that bans employers from prohibiting cross-dressing men from using female bathrooms.
• State governments continue to assign troubled teens to group homes and other such programs that have long histories of homosexual molestation. These groups NEVER lose their state license.

Rights of Association

• Despite over 3,000 molestations by homosexual scout leaders and other youth leaders, “sexual orientation” laws are being passed by states that force youth groups like the Scouts and the YMCA to accept homosexual employees.
• California has proposed a law to ban Boy Scouts from ever serving as judges, due to the Scout’s prohibition on homosexual leaders.
• Christian student groups are being refused school recognition if they exclude homosexual students despite clear Biblical prohibition against such behavior.
• Students at colleges have been forced to accept a homosexual roommate and one student who refused to live with a homosexual was fined and sent to sensitivity training.
• Hotels have been sued for refusing to rent to homosexual weddings.

Parental Rights

• Hillary Clinton made a speech to the UN in 2011 to the effect that our homes should be monitored by the government for any discouragement of homosexuality, the parents be damned.
• Already, in Europe and in Canada, homeschoolers have been banned from teaching against homosexuality in their own homes. I can assure you, this is coming to America.
• States are now passing laws that remove parental permission for school programs that promote homosexuality to school children.
• Parents have been arrested for pulling their children out of pro-homosexual school programs.
• Christian parents have been banned from accepting foster children because they hold traditional sexuality views.

Physicians/Counselor Rights

• Laws are being introduced to allow state governments to pull the license of fertility doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate lesbians.
• Psychologists have been fired for refusing to give pro-homosexual counseling to homosexuals.
• Doctors have faced career backlash for questioning sex change operations.
• Despite thousands of homosexuals successfully undergoing therapy to change their behavior, laws have been passed that bans the right of psychologists to engage in such therapy.
• Despite the documented harmful effects of the homosexual lifestyle, states are passing laws to prevent health care professionals and counselors to say anything to a sexually confused child that does not affirm homosexual behavior.
• Organizations that counsel homosexuals to leave the lifestyle have been subject to death threats, harassment and property damage.
• Students at public universities studying to be counselors have been dismissed from their programs if they hold traditional views on homosexuality.
• Let’s be clear: homosexuals enjoy the same constitutional rights all other Americans do (and no, marriage is NOT a constitutional right) so why do we need special laws for them? It’s because such special laws are not about securing rights they already have, but rather are used to promote their agenda. That’s their strategy and they openly admit this in their strategy manuals.

When it comes to phony “bullying” laws, for example, understand that assaults against anyone are already illegal. Homosexuals are not exempt from existing laws that protect everyone else. What these so-called “bullying” laws really do is create a slew of new public school programs to propagandize students about the virtues of homosexual behavior.

It is simply bizarre that our schools spend millions on anti-drug programs but are now willing to promote programs that encourage the homosexual lifestyle. This despite reams of evidence such behavior leads to a shorter lifespan and those who engage in it disproportionately suffer from a whole array of negative life-style choices. This has been confirmed by massive long-term studies of homosexuals by both the Canadian health agency and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), but the results of these studies were ignored by Fox News and other media conservatives.

If one claims to be a constitutionalist – like many media conservatives do – but are ignoring this massive assault on our constitutional rights, then they are simply not constitutionalists. The Fox News team seems to have adopted libertarian arguments on many of these issues, but even most libertarians are opposed to the tyrannical effect these laws are having on our culture.

Take same-sex marriage. The passage of same sex marriage laws has unleashed the power of government in many ways that are shocking. People are receiving death threats, being harass and even losing their jobs for speaking out against it. The legalization of homosexual marriage also means the state now recognizes homosexual behavior as normal. As a result, private adoption agencies are being forced to place children with homosexual families. Ditto for foster children and group home agencies. Schools now have to teach that homosexual behavior is normal, leading thousands of school children down the path of a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle. And, of course, if homosexuality is normal behavior, then that justifies all the “Hate Crime”, “bullying” and so called “anti-discrimination” laws now being passed all over America which have led to widespread attacks on our constitutional freedoms.

The problem, of course, is that homosexuality is not normal. Decades of research show the opposite. And the aforementioned CDC and Canadian long-term studies of thousands of homosexuals show clear cut disparities between homosexuals and heterosexuals in every lifestyle category: suicides, drug abuse, criminal activity, driving under the influence, prostitution, mental breakdowns, etc. Clearly, these are signs of an abnormal and unhealthy lifestyle.

Oh, yes, I know that the American Psychiatry Association (APA) has proclaimed homosexuality to be normal but that conclusion is not the result of any careful long-term study of homosexual lifestyles. It is the result of a secretive group of homosexual psychiatrists in 1973 taking over the committee that decides what behavior is “normal” and what is not. Homosexual behavior was removed as an abnormal behavior by a straight up and down vote with the homosexual psychiatrists prevailing. There’s wasn’t a scholarly debate or anything like that. Don’t be silly. It was pure politics. But do bear in mind that, at the time, the vast majority of APA members believed homosexuality to be abnormal.

And yet, our conservative media heroes still act as if there’s some kind of scientific consensus that homosexuality is a genetic-based normal behavior so they apparently believe all these “gay rights” battles involve normal people who are simply trying to protect their god-given rights.

To this day, I’ve never witnessed any major conservative media outlet or personality actually delve into the APA fraud, the massive CDC/Canadian homosexual lifestyle studies or even do a story on the large networks of ex-homosexuals in America today which, proves, of course, that homosexuality is a changeable behavior. Partly as a result of the refusal of the mainstream media — and later on the conservative media — to cover such stories over the last four decades, we now find ourselves on the losing end of “gay rights” battles on every front.

Even more surprising is the Pew Research study on how the media covers same sex marriage. It found that Fox News ran four times more stories supporting same sex marriage than opposing it. Nor do most people know that Fox News is a major financial sponsor of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), which itself monitors how Fox News covers gay issues and is constantly communicating with Fox News personalities to teach them the “correct” way to report on homosexual issues. And no, Fox News, whose slogan is “Fair and Balanced,” does not give any money to pro-traditional values groups.

Megyn Kelly is a Fox News superstar but more than most Fox News personalities, she really drinks the homosexual propaganda kool-aid. She supports homosexual marriage and often equates, on-air, the rights of blacks to the rights of homosexuals, despite the complete lack of evidence that homosexuality is an in-born trait like race is. She also uses the same phrases homosexual activists use in describing their battle for marriage rights: “marriage equality” and has referred to religious-based opponents of the homosexual agenda as “haters”, phrases right out of NLGJA’s playbook.

Unknown to most people, Kelly is deeply involved in the homosexual movement. She has appeared at a number of NLGJA events and I believe is influenced by a number of homosexual friends. This explains why she almost always takes the side of the homosexuals and rarely delves deeply into the homosexual movement’s attack on our constitutional rights.

Another Fox News superstar — Bill O’Reilly — is equally uninformed on these issues. Incredibly, O’Reilly has come out in support of the so-called “anti-discrimination” laws that have led to many of these attacks described earlier in this article. He supports homosexual adoption and has referred to Christians who opposed the homosexual agenda as “holy rollers” and “fanatics.”

Nor does O’Reilly have a problem with homosexual marriage or with Obama when he unilaterally and without congressional legislation, issued an order to allow open homosexuals in the military. For a man who describes himself as a “traditionalist” and a “culture warrior,” it’s hard to take him seriously when he’s already hoisted the white flag on some of the biggest cultural issues of the day.

Then there’s Shepard Smith, who has been “outed” by the homosexual community as one of their own. That’s no surprise. Smith has uttered favorable things about homosexual marriage and referred to those who flocked to Chick-fil- A to support their traditional marriage stance as being part of the “National Day of Intolerance.”

Fox News contributor Bernie Goldberg is also pro-homosexual and calls conservatives who oppose their agenda as “bigoted.” On his blog, Goldberg even claims Jesus Christ would be in support of homosexual marriage, a strange claim given the numerous statements by Jesus and his disciples regarding the sacred position God has assigned to the traditional male-female family. Goldberg also makes bizarre statements on his website claiming Jesus said some people are born gay, which, of course, is false. Indeed, both the Old and New Testaments are very clear in their condemnations of homosexual behavior.

Even Fox News “All-Stars” Charles Krauthammer, Stephen Hayes and George Will are in support of allowing open homosexuals in the military, seemingly ignorant of the body of research documenting how disruptive it will be for openly homosexual men and women to serve next to others in tight units where moral and unit cohesion can mean the difference between life and death. Polling of service members themselves confirm this, but Fox News has consistently downplayed or ignored the opinions of those who would be most effective by this radical policy.

Indeed, while representing San Diego in the State Legislature, I was given access to studies by the military demonstrating widespread misconduct by homosexual service members (and this was before homosexuals were allowed to serve!). They were engaged in far more crime, rape, and disruptive behavior than were heterosexual service members. Such internal studies were apparently swept under the table when it came to debating this issue in congress.

The military is NOT an equal opportunity employer or a jobs program. It is a fighting force that should reject any policy that undermines the unity of those who serve. Already, it has come to my attention that homosexual servicemen – now feeling fully protected by the White House – are engaging in open homosexual behavior in full view of their colleagues. As a result, unit cohesion is coming apart at the seams, morale is in shambles and our military is becoming weaker. Unfortunately, our media and even our conservative media, have chosen not to investigate this issue. After all, they all were in favor of this policy and now are reluctant to show how it has been a failure. Thanks for wrecking our military.

And I could go on and on with Fox News. Chris Wallace thinks those who opposed gay scout leaders should be compared to racists….Dana Perino, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Greg Gutfield and Eric Bolling all support same-sex marriage, gays in the military, and much of the gay agenda….former Fox News reporter Margaret Hoover supports much of the gay rights agenda and sits on the board of two homosexual groups… John Stossel refuses to accept that homosexuality is a changeable behavior and opposes efforts to counsel homosexuals, a strange view for a freedom-loving libertarian….Elizabeth Hasselbeck called the Pope’s opposition to homosexual marriage as “inhumane.” (For God’s sake Elizabeth, read the Bible)….Sally Kohn is a lesbian activist who shills for “gay rights” in her Fox News website columns….and on and on.

Indeed, it is hard to find any “cultural warrior” at Fox News who is really a cultural warrior and who understands the threats posed to our freedoms by the homosexual agenda. Clearly, these people are surrounded by social liberals and simply spout the liberal line on these issues. Fox News may be a champion on economic and foreign policy issues but it’s time to admit they are completely clueless – and even damaging – when it comes to the key social issues of our time.
And Fox News most conservative personality –Sean Hannity – has apparently decided to avoid these issues, seldom mentioning them or making them the subject of any of his television or radio shows. For a self-described conservative Catholic, that is rather discouraging. Meanwhile Catholic schools, adoption agencies and charities are being brutalized by the “gay rights” movement. And not a peep from Sean.

One has to wonder if the Fox News team really doesn’t understand how “gay rights’’ not only undermine America’s Christian culture but also constitute a direct attack on the more important rights given to us by our founding fathers — such as freedom of speech, religion, press, and association.

However, it’s not much different with other media conservatives outside of Fox News. Glenn Beck said on the O’Reilly show that homosexual marriage is not “a threat to the country,” a bizarre statement from an alleged social conservative. Beck also quoted Jefferson to back up his neutral stance on same sex marriage: “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me.”

But Jefferson would not have supported gay marriage or the police state tactics that homosexual marriage has brought to our culture. Despite calling himself a constitutionalist, Beck seems to know little about how our founder fathers regarded the traditional family unit as key to America’s freedom and prosperity. They believe it to be the backbone of the United States and the key to its culture. The destruction of the traditional family unit means the destruction of our culture and ultimately our country. Does Beck really not understand that? Is he really not aware of the wave of attacks on our freedoms I have described above?

It has now become quite clear that the homosexual agenda is undermining our freedoms, our families and our faith. It is disrupting our Christian culture and assaulting our constitutional rights on every conceivable front. And if you don’t think this is exactly what the homosexuals have planned all along, then you haven’t been reading their books and manifestos. Today, there are literally hundreds of lawsuits ongoing in courthouses all over America, most of them taken on by struggling small non-profit legal organizations trying desperately to preserve our constitutional freedoms.

As these legal groups attempt to preserve our rights from this onslaught, it would be nice if our conservative media personalities would start to cover these stories in a serious manner, instead of using quickie libertarian sound bites to quickly dismiss them. And they also need to please stop the frivolous “me too” reporting about so and so Hollywood star “coming out” and start investigating the real issues here. It is time for media conservatives to wake up, ignore the talking points given them by the NLGJA and start reporting how the homosexual rights agenda is compromising our constitutional rights.

Note: I would like to thank Cliff Kincaid and Peter LaBarbera for digging up much of the research regarding the conservative media’s involvement with the gay agenda. Much of this info was taken from their report published by America’s Survival (www.usasurvival.org) titled Unfair, Unbalanced and Afraid: Fox News’ Growing Pro-Homosexual Bias and the National Gay & Lesbian Journalists Association.

One of the major speakers at last week’s “New Populism” conference was Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), a labor union which represents  on-line writers, reporters, editorial assistants, editorial artists and correspondents at major news organizations.

Cohen gave his speech after returning from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) conference, where Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, was announced as winner of the title of “the world’s worst boss” for trying to keep prices low for consumers and opposing union control of his workplace.

Bezos, the new owner of The Washington Post, will have to negotiate with The Newspaper Guild, which merged with the CWA in 1995 and represents nearly 900 editorial and newsroom workers at the Post.

“Amazon has successfully fended off U.S. labor unions since its founding in 1994,” notes Time magazine.

Bezos has been described as a libertarian, but the Post was known as a liberal Democrat newspaper under its previous owners, the Grahams.

It will be interesting to see if he cuts this union down to size. The survival of the paper, with declining revenue and readers, may depend on it.

As the “populism” conference indicates, the progressives—once called liberals—are now calling themselves something else, in order to fool the electorate.

Don’t look for the media to blow the whistle on themselves.

Whatever they call themselves, they are in control of much of the news and editorial content of major news media organizations.

We look forward to the Post, under its new owner, telling the truth about how the CWA functions as a major component of the progressive movement, and how liberal bias is killing the appeal of the so-called mainstream media.

In addition to the Post, the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild represents employees at such news organizations as The Baltimore Sun and Bloomberg-BNA. Not surprisingly, CWA says thousands of its members also work for public broadcasting entities.

A partisan political operative who serves as a member of the Democratic National Committee and endorsed Obama in 2008, Cohen is a regular guest on the MSNBC cable channel.

Cohen’s tone last week was desperate, as the “progressives,” or “populists,” apparently understand that their President’s popularity is declining, and that their base is becoming increasingly demoralized and less likely to turn out to vote in November’s elections.

One member of the audience openly griped that she was being forced to liquidate her retirement fund in order to pay for her Obamacare plan.

The CWA’s “Education Department” has published a 38-page document entitled “Building a Movement for Economic & Democracy,” which describes in detail how various components of the progressive movement are said to make up more than 71 million people, enough to create a working majority of the voting population, and guarantee victory in national elections.

This might be news to the Republicans who think they will retain the House and take the Senate in this year’s national elections.

Holding up a copy of his “Building a Movement” booklet, Cohen told the “populism” conference that the political left needs to push a “common narrative” and “common collective action.” It is a message of “economic justice,” he said.

But it’s really more of the same Marxist agitation and propaganda about such issues as “inequality.”

“CWA is working to build a movement of progressive organizations to win progressive changes,” the CWA website says. “A founder of The Democracy Initiative, CWA works with labor and worker groups like Jobs with Justice, American Rights at Work, the AFL-CIO, and Change to Win, but also civil rights and consumer groups, such as the NAACP, Alliance for Justice, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Blue Green Alliance, and Common Cause.”

The endorsers of the Democracy Initiative are a who’s who of the political left.

One key to the group’s success is preventing the media, which they essentially control, from reporting on their plans.

But another factor is money.

CWA rails against “big money” in politics, but spends a lot of its members’ money on candidates for office through the CWA Political Action Fund.

Equally significant, Cohen is in bed politically with some of the “big money” he supposedly abhors.

The conservative Washington Free Beacon reports that Cohen is a “partner” of the Democracy Alliance, a group co-founded by billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros, that funnels money to various liberal groups. Lachlan Markay, of the Washington Free Beacon, said Democracy Alliance “partners” are individuals who every year must pay $30,000 in dues and contribute at least $200,000 to the groups that DA supports. Markay reports that George Kohl, senior director of the Communications Workers of America, is also a partner of the Democracy Alliance.

Members of the Democracy Alliance, including Soros, have helped finance influential national liberal groups such as Media Matters for America.

So the CWA, through its Newspaper Guild affiliate, produces much of the material we see in the media, while Media Matters puts pressure on those in the media who attempt to bolt the Democratic Party line. It’s a strategy of pressure from above and below.

Gara LaMarche, President of the Democracy Alliance, previously served as Vice President and Director of U.S. Programs for the Soros-funded Open Society Foundations.

There’s no doubt that Soros, a convicted inside-trader, is calling the shots.

“Membership in the Alliance is by invitation-only,” the Democracy Alliance says. “We provide you [the big money liberal donor] with personalized products and services to help you navigate the progressive landscape and make the most of your philanthropy.”

But the “progressive landscape” also benefits from taxpayer dollars.

One of CWA’s coalition partners is CASA de Maryland, a taxpayer-funded entity described by writer Jim Simpson in an AIM special report as “the illegals’ ACORN.” On June 5, CASA de Maryland is hosting a “Justice Awards Night” fundraiser featuring Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, and Tefere Gebre, Executive Vice President of the AFL-CIO. The Master of Ceremonies is Erika Gonzalez, an anchor for NBC 4 in Washington, D.C.

“All proceeds from the event will benefit CASA’s services for immigrant families and its grassroots advocacy for social justice,” the group says.

Its CASA in Action affiliate claims more than 50,000 members and issues endorsements for political office, virtually all of them liberal Democrats. It is financially supported by the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Labor, agencies of the Maryland State Government, and private liberal funders such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundation.

It seems the left has its own sources of “big money.” But don’t look for the CWA to expose that in the media.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

Originally Posted on Yahoo

In the upcoming animated sequel to “How to Train Your Dragon,” the rugged viking character Gobber is coming out as gay.

Gobber, who is voiced by “Late Late Show” host Craig Ferguson, is seen watching a husband and wife squabble and says that’s why he never got married. After a beat, he adds there’s another reason.

Director Dean DeBlois told an E! reporter that he confirmed the character was indeed referring to his sexual orientation.

 “When we were recording Craig Ferguson, I had written the line, ‘This is why I never got married,’ and he, as he often does, added it as an ad lib and he said, ‘Yup, Gobber is coming out of the closet,’” DeBlois said. “I think that’s a really fun [and] daring move to put in. I love the idea that Gobber is Berk’s resident gay.”

 “How To Train Your Dragon 2” follows “ParaNorman” as one of the first mainstream animated films to feature an openly LGBT character.

The co-director of a family-friendly comedy that hit theaters last weekend says critics of the film are “bullying” the way of life it portrays, calling the movie “sexist” and “insulting.”

Directed by brothers Jon and Andrew Erwin, Moms’ Night Out celebrates motherhood in a true-to-life family comedy that values the role of parenting – and audiences across the nation are enjoying the independent faith-based hit, which ranked #7 among all movies in theaters last week.

But liberal movie critics have labeled the PG-rated movie “anti-feminist,” “borderline dangerous,” “offensive,” and “insulting” – and reviewer Brian Orndorf condemns the movie as “ugly sexism in what’s trying to be a harmless feature ….”

In an interview Thursday on American Family Radio, Jon Erwin said some of the reviews reflect contempt towards the Christian faith.

“At no point in the movie do we condone or preach that everyone should be a stay-at-home mom, but one of them is portrayed in the movie – and for some reason, that has just incensed a lot of these critics,” he told radio host Sandy Rios.

“… I think it just shows that our way of life is being bullied, and to me that’s what’s alarming, especially working in Hollywood and sitting in rooms with conservatives in Hollywood – some of them in tears – talking about how they’ve lost their job, how they’ve been made fun of because of their conservative beliefs.”

Erwin pointed out that exit polls find 82 percent of moviegoers (the average is 60 percent) say they would recommend the movie, but critics only give the film a 16-percent rating.

“We are taking a lot of fire from the industry that we work in because we’re making progress – and we can have our voice back as conservatives,” said the moviemaker. “… Film is a democracy, and your movie ticket is your vote. So I want to challenge everybody: let’s go support our way of life.”

Moms’ Night Out, which cost $5 million to produce, has grossed $4.9 million in its first week on the big screen. It opened in 1,044 theaters and averaged $4,129 over the weekend – the third-highest screen average among the top ten for the weekend.

The Erwin brothers also co-directed the independent film October Baby.

 This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

Coldplay front man Chris Martin says this on his “conscious uncoupling” (also known to mere mortals as divorce) from Gwyneth Paltrow:

This was more a realization about trying to grow up basically… if you can’t open yourself up, you can’t appreciate the wonder inside. So you can be with someone very wonderful, but because of your own issues you cannot let that be celebrated in the right way. What changed for me was, I don’t want to go through life being scared of it, being scared of love, being scared of rejection, being scared of failure… About two years ago I was a mess really because I can’t enjoy the thing that we are good at and I can’t enjoy the great things around me because I’m burdened by this–I’ve got to not blame anyone else and make some changes. Up to a certain point in my life I wasn’t completely vulnerable and it caused some problems. If you don’t let love really in then you can’t really give it back.  

Huh? What is he, a 16-year-old girl, watching Oprah reruns and reading Eat, Pray, Love? 

It seems unlikely that what his kids most want and need from him is that he be able to appreciate the wonder inside himself. 

I hope that Martin can one day soon appreciate the poop that’s actually inside us (pun intended). Realizing that, realizing that we are all depraved, might be the first step toward recognizing the universal need for Christ who embodied real love. Christ who died for his bride, the church, who endured the worst trials for his bride (note the complementarity of marriage: marriage partners are by nature fundamentally different), expects that once married, husbands and wives stay married, which requires the sacrifice of personal desires. True marital love, the kind that dies to self, is what our kids need and want, and it is wholly distinct from the contemporary narcissistic perversion of love characterized by self-absorption and self-wonder.

Written by Roger Aronoff

Critics on both the left and the right are lambasting President Obama for his ongoing policies restricting the freedom of the press, ostensibly in favor of national security, which in some cases amount to a vendetta against reporters who publish what leakers leak, rather than just going after what the leakers have done themselves. “The Obama administration’s unprecedented pursuit of criminal liability against security leakers threatens to rope in the Fourth Estate,” wrote Stanford’s Jennifer Granick and Morgan Weiland for Forbes. (Weiland used to work for the far-left Media Matters.) “The message? Don’t report national security stories or you will become a target.”

“The press does deserve contempt—but it should come from the public for dereliction of duty,” counters Investors Business Daily in a recent editorial. That’s because, they argue, the press has been largely indifferent to the inroads the administration has made against them: restricting FOIA requests and finding loopholes to deny them, scooping up the Associated Press records en masse, and ignoring how press freedoms in this country have diminished.

Even Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, a common accountability tactic used by journalists and citizens alike, now serve as a testament to the White House’s desire to control all messaging. Cause of Action, which describes itself as a non-partisan government accountability organization, recently released a 2009 memo by White House Counsel Greg Craig that instructs agencies to consider White House “equities” when processing FOIA requests, Government Accountability Office requests, and even judicial subpoenas. “The FOIA requires federal agencies to respond within 20 days of receiving a request, but the White House equities exception can make it impossible for an agency to meet that deadline,” reports Mark Tapscott for the Washington Examiner. Stonewalling becomes the answer to these public requests. Thus, with the normal avenues for gaining information closed off, and the secret ones penalized by the Espionage Act, the press is left to work off of one source—the Obama administration—through press releases, press conferences, and propaganda.

The U.S. recently declined dramatically, falling 13 places to 46^th place in terms of press freedom in the world, a sign that President Barack Obama’s pursuit of leakers is taking a toll on freedom in this country. However, the U.S. scored even lower in 2012 on the Reporters Without Borders (RWB) World Press Freedom Index, at 47^th place. Liberal in bent, RWB cites the sentencing of Bradley Manning and pursuit of Edward Snowden as the main basis for their decisions, as well as the subpoena of Associated Press phone records.

Accuracy in Media has extensively outlined how Manning and Snowden have, in effect, harmed national security and should be prosecuted for their crimes. But what about the administration’s decision to go after the Associated Press’ phone records—or James Rosen of Fox News? The Obama administration’s war on journalists who print leaked national security information is ongoing, with months of journalists’ phone records subpoenaed, their movements tracked, and their emails invaded. In one case, Fox News journalist James Rosen was even named as a possible “co-conspirator” with leaker Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who pleaded guilty to the charges against him.

But some in the press have actually taken notice of the restrictive environment created by President Obama. “The Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists…more than all previous administrations combined,” remarked Jake Tapper on January 2nd. Tapper later conceded that not all of these people should be categorized as whistleblowers, but all could be considered leakers. “Rather than pursuing journalists, the emphasis has been on going after their sources, but often using the journalist to identify them,” notes RWB.

Leonard Downie Jr., long time executive editor of The Washington Post, was the author of  the Committee to Protect Journalists October 2013 report titled “The Obama Administration and the Press.” The report said that of the 11 total prosecutions of leakers by the U.S. government using the Espionage Act, eight have occurred during the Obama administration, including six government employees and two contractors, one of whom was Snowden. Downie said that “The [Obama] administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate.”

David Sanger of The New York Times said of the Obama administration, “This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.” And just last week, New York Times reporter James Risen argued that the Obama administration has been “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” Risen, as reported by the website Poynter, “is fighting an order that he testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer accused of leaking information to him.” He added that the administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting,” to “create a path for accepted reporting.” He said that any journalist “who exceeds those parameters, ‘will be punished,’” and that these prosecutions have created “a de facto Official Secrets Act.” He added that the media have been “too timid” in responding.

Are we doomed to an escalation of government intrusion upon the press? The cases of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim and Jeffrey Sterling have important deadlines this year. Kim’s guilty plea must be approved by a judge, and his sentencing is scheduled to take place on April 2. James Risen has been compelled by the Fourth Circuit to testify whether or not Jeffrey Sterling was a source for classified material about a botched CIA operation to undermine Iranian nuclear efforts. Risen submitted a petition to the Supreme Court claiming that this violates his “reportorial privilege,” or the ability to keep confidence between him and his sources. He faces jail time if he doesn’t out his source, or if the SCOTUS doesn’t come to his rescue.

“Years of communication records for the two men were subpoenaed and seized during the government’s investigation—and itemized in Sterling’s indictment,” wrote Downie Jr. for the CPJ report. “In hindsight, it was the first clear evidence that the Justice Department was digging into the phone and e-mail records of both government officials and journalists while investigating leaks.” So Risen and Sterling’s case was essentially the canary in the coal mine.

When James Rosen was singled out, many rallied around him on Twitter and in the media. CBS News called the surveillance of Rosen “unprecedented.” “Agents monitored Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department” using electronic security badge records, they reported. “[Agents] searched his personal emails and combed through his cell phone records.” Bipartisan “outrage” ensued, they argue.

“Although the secret subpoena was approved by Holder in May 2010, it and the records seizure did not become known until court records were unsealed three years later,” noted Downie. “Those records showed that the Justice Department went back to court repeatedly during that time for approval to avoid notifying Rosen and Fox News about the subpoena, in an apparent effort to continue to monitor Rosen’s e-mail for other contacts with government officials.”

“It amounted to open-ended government surveillance of a reporter’s communications.”

Outrage also ensued when the public learned that the Department of Justice had subpoenaed two months of Associated Press phone records for more than 20 telephone lines. “There can be no possible justification for such an over broad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,” said AP CEO Gary Pruitt at the time.

On the AP matter, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that he had recused himself, which he wasn’t able to document. And in the Rosen case, Holder assured Congress that he never considered criminal prosecution of journalists—using The Espionage Act—for reporting information that the government considered classified. In both cases, Holder was shown to have not been telling the truth.

The outrage over the ongoing Sterling case and the court’s decision to force journalist James Risen to reveal his source for a chapter in his 2006 book State ofWar has been more muted. His latest appeal to the Supreme Court has received very little media attention. Politico reported that the Supreme Court decision on whether or not to see the case would likely come no earlier than late February, but that date has come and gone without a decision. Risen recently received an award from the New England First Amendment Coalition, which garnered some media attention.

Also, there is the fact that ample evidence exists to convict Jeffrey Sterling absent Risen’s testimony. For example, according to Risen’s writ of certiori, there is testimony from a witness “that Sterling told her about his plans to meet with someone named ‘Jim,’ who had written an article about Sterling’s discrimination case and was working on a book about the CIA.”

It further states that “The witness testified she understood ‘Jim’ to be Risen and that, when she saw State of War in a bookstore, Sterling told her, without looking at the book, that Chapter 9 was about work he had done at the CIA.” Sterling was also an on-the-record source for a March 2, 2002 article by Risen, and there is “testimony of numerous phone calls between Risen and Sterling’s home in Herndon, Virginia in February/March 2003, immediately before Risen informed the CIA he had information about ‘Operation Merlin.’” There are also, “phone records and emails reflecting dozens of communications between Sterling and Risen.” Why, then, is Risen’s testimony necessary? Is it so that the press freedoms can be further subordinated to government requirements on free speech?

Risen was singled out by Reporters Without Borders, which invited him as a panelist to discuss their World Freedom Index at the Press Club.

“Risen and other journalists complain that the Obama administration has acted with unprecedented aggression by demanding the testimony of journalists in numerous cases, but this reflects the government’s desperation to stop leaking, not a new Orwellian agenda,” argued Professor Eric Posner for Slate in January. But does the desperation to stop leaks really excuse the White House’s aggressive behavior?

While a balance must be struck between protecting the nation’s secrets and having a system in which legitimate whistleblowers are able to confide in reporters to expose government wrongdoing, the Obama administration has demonstrated an unparalleled tendency to keep its actions and records hidden from the American people. And that has occurred during a time that the media have done all they can to downplay or ignore a series of scandals—from Benghazi, to the IRS to Operation Fast and Furious—any one of which would likely have brought a Republican administration down.

This article was originally posted on the Accuracy in Media website.

Written John Kirkwood

God’s Not Dead is an alarm for unconverted sinners and a wake-up call for slumbering Christians and that is why it is worth seeing, and seeing more than once. This is the movie for which the mall-churches should be buying out theaters and holding small groups; but you won’t see the world or the worldly church embrace God’s Not Dead because, frankly, it confronts them.

With only 780 screens the Pure Flix movie God’s Not Dead shocked Hollywood Box Office gurus by pulling in 9.2 million and a fourth place overall finish this past weekend. Raking in just under $12,000 per screen average, God’s Not Dead just may be the most popular top 5 movie that you’ve never heard about. The popularity of the film is being spread as the Gospel should be, by word of mouth from people who have seen it and been authentically touched by it.

Without the big budget or celebrity splash surrounding Son of God, this collaboration between Pure Flix and Freestyle Releasing has Variety and Entertainment Weekly hailing it as the “Biggest Shocker” and “Biggest Surprise” of the weekend. But this movie is a success for a different reason: It’s not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. On numerous occasions it shares that gospel in a direct and dramatic way.

Starring Kevin Sorbo [Hercules] and Dean Cain [Superman] with appearances by Willie and Korie Robertson of Duck Commander and the Christian rock band Newsboys, the low budget movie challenges status quo dismissal of true Christianity and defuses many of the stereotypes. When college freshman Josh Wheaton is challenged to defend his belief in God by his atheist philosophy teacher (Sorbo), he finds that his struggle transcends the classroom and forces him to choose between discipleship and his most cherished relationships.

The plot was inspired by real life cases of religious bigotry on college campuses, 40 of which are listed in the credits at the end of the film. And to all those who take their faith seriously, there are some very familiar moments in this film. The unanswered question that the movie poses is “What do Communism, Atheism, Liberalism and Shiny-Happy Christianity have in common?” The stunning answer is that they all, with differing levels of hostility, oppose the true disciple of Christ.

I don’t imagine that this movie will cause legions of unbelievers to walk the sawdust trail, although I do think that many may come to Christ as a result of the seeds planted, but the true effect of God’s Not Dead will be on the life of believers. It is an absolute challenge to true discipleship. Many are missing that point. Not only is the gospel shared on multiple occasions but more than once we are reminded,

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.  – Matthew 10:32-33

In a time when Churchianity’s biggest names are busy denying the real Jesus and apologizing for his Word, God’s Not Dead stands out as a challenge to the embarrassed believer to let the dead bury their dead and to take up his cross. And this is why it will continue to be provocative.

The controversy over the movie Son of God came from within the Christian community for its social justice theme and its watering down of the gospel, while the movie was embraced by everyone from the ADL’s Abraham Foxman to the High Priestess of New Age possibility, Oprah Winfrey. The controversy over God’s Not Dead will not come from within the Christian community at all; it will come from Muslims, atheists and embarrassed believers. And with a plethora of reviews coming out about the movie Noah; the buzz about God’s Not Dead is poised to push it to a second eye-popping weekend as it expands to 1100 screens.

“I have not posted comments about Noah because I haven’t seen the film,” wrote Todd Starnes of Fox News.

That being said, I’m a bit perplexed by “celebrity” Christian leaders who are saying that Christians have a responsibility to see Noah – even if it’s contrary to the Bible. And a number of folks who’ve seen the film say it strays greatly from the Bible’s version of events. One “celebrity” Christian leader went so far as to say Christians would hurt their witness in Hollywood if they did not support the Noah film. That’s a load of fertilizer, friends. If all these pro-Noah Christian leaders are so passionate about Hollywood making faith films – why aren’t they promoting God’s Not Dead?

David Steiger, co-host of the Uncommon Show agreed:

Tell me, why it took a low budget group of virtual no names (apologies to Sorbo and Cain) to make so great a Gospel proclaiming movie, when Son of God could have and should have had that covered already? Where were the mega-pastors on this one – buying out theaters, telling their flock to skip church and go to the movie? Where are the “small group” books? Why are the mega-shepherds silent on what is easily the boldest Gospel movie in the last decade? I guess it doesn’t fit their narrative.

These men may be too gentlemanly to tell you what everyone is thinking: that the makers of God’s Not Dead did not pay for “spontaneous” acclaim. They didn’t offer a taste of the profits to “Christian mouthpieces” that would push their movie; like construction companies offering Tony Soprano a kickback to get a piece of the Esplanade. It’s called integrity and yes, there are still Christians, even prominent ones that have it. And that is why you don’t hear the big names pushing this movie, there’s no Mammon in it for them.

Most of the “supporters” that I have talked to about Son of God had not seen the movie and yet they still scolded me, though I had seen it, for critiquing it. The supporters of God’s Not Dead have seen the movie and are going back multiple times and bringing others with them. And that’s how I feel as well.

God’s Not Dead takes on all comers – the new Atheists, Islam and even Communism. And it does so without a sniveling apology for our existence as believers or for Christ’s exclusive claims. How so very faithful. How so very refreshing.

If I had any criticism of the movie, it’s that some of the characters are almost a caricature; too severe in their nature and forging a thread worn stereotype, but they do have some basis in reality: Kevin Sorbo could have been portraying Ted Turner, a bitter man turned hostile to God because of the excruciating experience of losing his sister at a young age. Fortunately, it doesn’t get in the way of the most daring Christian movie since The Passion of the Christ.

This article was originally published at the ClashDaily.com blog.

Written by Bill Mulenberg

A defining feature of contemporary Western culture is the establishment and defense of certain ideological shibboleths that dare not be gainsayed. These PC orthodoxies are enforced with all the fanaticism of any religious cult, and those who dare to resist are treated as enemies, heretics and apostates.

Plenty of such ideological agendas can be mentioned here. Homosexualism is of course a perfect example, with most Western elites and almost all of the mainstream media marching in step with what the homosexual militants demand. And woe to anyone who dares to differ.

Instead of an objective media which allows for differing points of view, on issues like homosexuality there is only one position. Contrary points of view are censored out, mocked and ridiculed. This was not always the case, but so successful have the militants been in pushing their agenda, and harnessing the coercive arm of the state, that a code of silence has now descended on any heterodox viewpoints.

Another clear example of this is of course climate alarmism. This has now become the reigning orthodoxy, and contrary points of view are not allowed. Those who dare to differ are pilloried and demonized as recalcitrants and worse. Yet some brave voices are willing to go against the flow, and demand that truth be heard in the public arena.

The warmist alarmist establishment hates this, especially when one of their own turns against them. There have been a number of such defectors, and they are of course treated as persona non grata by the true believers. But their voices must be heard nonetheless.

One of these is someone well qualified to speak on such matters. I refer to a former founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore. Several years ago he wrote a very important book describing in detail why he changed his mind on all these matters. I reviewed that incisive volume HERE.

He has recently come out with more heterodoxy when it comes to climate alarmism. One news report covers the story this way: “A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.

“Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.

“’There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,’ he said. Even if the planet is warming up, Moore claimed it would not be calamitous for men, which he described as a ‘subtropical species’.”

Of course the true believers will dismiss all this, and throw out their mantra, “the science is settled”. Yeah right. As if. Only ideologues with predetermined outcomes in mind throw around this sort of foolishness. Real science is always open to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. And new or changing evidence makes for new or changing assessments.

Charles Krauthammer has recently penned a piece on the myth of ‘settled science’. He begins: “I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“’The debate is settled,’ asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. ‘Climate change is a fact.’ Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less) or be subject to termination.

“Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.

“So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

“They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: ‘You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.’ Not surprisingly, these models have been ‘consistently and spectacularly wrong’ in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction.

“Settled? Even Britain’s national weather service concedes there’s been no change — delicately called a ‘pause’ — in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?”

He concludes, “Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there’s more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads. If you whore after other gods, the Bible tells us, ‘the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit’ (Deuteronomy 11).

“Sounds like California. Except that today there’s a new god, the Earth Mother. And a new set of sins — burning coal and driving a fully equipped F-150. But whoring is whoring, and the gods must be appeased. So if California burns, you send your high priest (in carbon -belching Air Force One, but never mind) to the bone-dry land to offer up, on behalf of the repentant congregation, a $1 billion burnt offering called a ‘climate resilience fund.’ Ah, settled science in action.”

Someone well qualified to speak on these issues is S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. He refers to recent remarks by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, that “The science is unequivocal”.

He writes: “A survey of more than 1,800 members of the American Meteorological Society showed that less than half believe humans are the primary cause of any recent warming. Reviews of published climate papers by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report on thousands of peer-reviewed studies that contradict the alarmist global-warming narrative; the Chinese Academy of Sciences has published a condensed version of NIPCC reports. But many scientific organizations and academies are still sharply split on the issue of dangerous AGW (anthropogenic global warming)….

“Much has changed since 1997; but one constant is that the proponents of AGW have yet to publish any firm evidence that man-made CO2 is doing anything dangerous. They hadn’t done it in 1988 when James Hansen told a Congressional committee that we are headed to disaster; they hadn’t done it in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was signed by almost 200 countries (but never ratified by the US Senate); and they haven’t done it now.

“So the science about global warming cannot be called ‘settled.’ It no longer supports AGW — if indeed it ever did; in fact, there has been no significant warming trend for at least 16 years, while atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by more than 8%.”

But the true believers will not be deterred by facts and evidence. They have a new orthodoxy to push, and they will push it for as long as they can get away with it.