07/18/16

The “Sisterhood” in the Media

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

In his “That Bloody Woman” editorial in Chronicles about Hillary Clinton, Chilton Williamson, Jr. writes about the “cadre of aging and bitter feminists” backing the Democrat for president. He says they “would enthusiastically elect a dead woman as president to vindicate the Sisterhood younger women care little about.” It appears this “Sisterhood” is finding its voice in The Washington Post.

As the trusted voice of far-left feminism in the nation’s capital, the Post ran these headlineson Saturday afternoon about Donald J. Trump’s decision to pick Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate: “Trump had a problem with women voters. Pence could make it even worse.” What is Pence’s problem? Well, he “has endorsed controversial legislation on abortion and Planned Parenthood.”

Post reporter Katie Zezima neglected to mention that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, was founded by Margaret Sanger, a revolutionary socialist and anti-Christian activist who favored government programs to eliminate what she called “human weeds.”

After a pilgrimage to Stalin’s Russia, Sanger said, “[W]e could well take example from Russia, where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.” She hailed the Soviet Union’s abortion law, noting that Russia was probably the first country in the world to give official approval to abortion.

“Russia today is the country of the liberated woman,” she announced.

Ignoring all of this, Post reporter Zezima went on: “Democrats—including presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton—women’s health advocates and gay rights groups wasted no time pouncing on Pence, whom they described as extreme, anti-woman and anti-gay.”

Anti-woman? Pence favors the right to life of unborn women. He supports traditional marriage and human life. He’s “anti-gay” because he supports traditional values and believes those who hold those views have a right to express and practice them.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton says she admires Sanger and opposes limits on abortion at any stage of pregnancy. She says the “unborn person” doesn’t have a constitutional right to life.

Doesn’t this make her anti-human or anti-life?

The Post term, “women’s health advocates,” means apologists for abortion and disregard for the sanctity of human life.

“Earlier this year,” the Post said, “Pence signed one of the nation’s farthest-reaching abortion laws, which bans abortions of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome or any other disability or because of the race, sex or ancestry of the fetus.”

Another way to say this is that Pence favors the right to life of disabled people and wants to prohibit deadly discrimination against them in the womb.

Hitler regarded the disabled as “life unworthy of life.” According to the U.S. Holocaust Museum, children with disabilities were sent to “killing wards,” where they were murdered by lethal overdoses of medication or by starvation.

Hillary Clinton and other “progressives” endorse the same thing, as long as it is done in the womb.

This is the mark of the Sisterhood: abortion for any reason at any time.

Quoting the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Post said Pence’s pro-life policies violate “women’s rights.” But sex selection abortion primarily targets girls.

“In Congress,” Ms. Zezima said, “Pence embarked on a crusade against Planned Parenthood, filing the first legislation that called for barring the organization from receiving federal funding.”

The word “crusade” is meant to suggest he’s a religious fanatic. He was the “first” to file such legislation, meaning he’s really a pro-life nut.

“The addition of Pence tacks the GOP ticket far to the right on gay issues as well,” she adds. That means he’s serious about protecting traditional values.

One never finds the term “far-left” used in the Post to refer to the feminists in the Democratic Party or their lackeys at papers like the Post. The Post warns about Pence, “He is also against allowing undocumented people a pathway to citizenship.”

The term “undocumented people” is, of course, a euphemism for illegal aliens. These are people who broke the law to enter the United States. To the Post, they are merely “undocumented,” meaning that the dog ate their homework—through no fault of their own.

Zezima might as well be on the payroll of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Or perhaps she is working for Planned Parenthood.

This is the Sisterhood in action. Expect more garbage of this nature from the liberal media.

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

07/16/16

Media Question “Feminist Values” of British Prime Minister

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

If you’re a woman who believes in limits on abortion and you don’t favor same-sex marriage, you’re not a real woman, according to The Washington Post. That’s the essence of a Post story about the new British Prime Minister Theresa May, “Women question feminist values of Britain’s next leader.”

Theresa May has “backed calls to reduce the time limit on abortion.” She says she “does not like same-sex marriage.” That’s why feminists question her feminist credentials.

One reads a story like this and wonders if the editors of the paper even realize how biased this account actually is.

Perhaps the bias is second nature. Perhaps one must be a feminist to work at the paper and so there is nobody in a position to question the bias that is accepted in a matter-of-fact manner.

According to this treatment of the issue, a woman who favors the rights of the unborn and the idea that a woman should marry a man is out of touch with “feminist values.” There was a time when man-woman marriage and motherhood were considered sacred in this country.

This feminist advocacy piece is full of loaded terms like “women’s groups.” That means feminist. Sophie Walker of the Women’s Equality Party is quoted as saying that she doesn’t think Theresa May is in touch with the “experiences” of women. By contrast, the story says Hillary Clinton has a “long track record in standing up for women’s rights.” That means lesbian rights and abortion on demand.

What about the rights of the women sexually molested or assaulted by her husband Bill Clinton? Somehow, that part of the story got left out.

Later in the piece, the Post writer, Karla Adam, admits that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher “bristled at the idea of being labeled a feminist” and once declared, “I owe nothing to women’s lib.” It was a reminder that a woman can in fact be a conservative. Yet, in the overall piece, the tone was that the only women who count are feminists who favor aborting children and lesbian rights.

Meanwhile, the Post reports that a newborn baby was discovered in a backyard in Indiana, and the infant’s placenta and umbilical cord were covered in maggots. At least the baby was allowed to be born.

It’s been called “Miracle Baby Jane Doe.” It’s a miracle in this era of abortion on demand, for any and all reasons, including convenience, that the baby lived.

It appears that the mother won’t be part of the “Shout Your Abortion” campaign that has been highlighted by the paper. One “feminist” was quoted as saying, “I have a good heart and having an abortion made me happy in a totally unqualified way. Why wouldn’t I be happy that I was not forced to become a mother?”

Was she “forced” to get pregnant? Or was she a sexually promiscuous female without regard for the human life being created inside her?

The Post even provided a link for women to submit stories about their proud abortions. That made the author of the piece, Caitlin Gibson, a feature writer at The Washington Post, complicit in facilitating abortion advocacy. But that’s no problem for the Post.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has approved strong pro-life language for its 2016 platform.

But according to Post writers Ed O’Keefe and Dan Balz, that means the GOP has adopted a “staunchly conservative” position on abortion.

Have you ever heard the Post refer to a “staunch feminist” or a “staunch” advocate of abortion? I didn’t think so.

Not to be outdone, The New York Times headlines how the GOP platform is going “far to the right.” It, too, used the term “staunchly conservative.” But there’s more. The paper says the new platform “amounts to a rightward lurch even from the party’s hard-line platform in 2012…”

Let’s list all of these terms meant to depict Republicans as extremists: staunchly conservative, rightward lurch and hard-line.

We have come to expect this kind of bias, day in and day out. Still, it’s worthwhile to highlight a few of the examples of the propaganda that journalism has become.

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

10/10/15

Sanders Adviser Calls for Repeal of Columbus Day

Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Near the end of Mel Gibson’s film “Apocalypto,” we see Christian missionaries arriving in the New World to save the natives from a culture of death that celebrates beheadings and human sacrifices to pagan Gods. Gibson has said he based the dramatic landing scene on the fourth expedition of the great Italian explorer Christopher Columbus. But celebrating the spread of Christianity has become so politically incorrect that a New Age adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has called for repealing Columbus Day.

Marianne Williamson, a prominent supporter of Sanders and his “political revolution,” writes in her book, The Healing of America, that Columbus was “a murderer of indigenous peoples,” and says his life “was a model for the standard of enslavement and killings that came to characterize much of European settlement in the New World…”

She insists that Columbus Day, which was declared a federal holiday in 1937 by President Franklin Roosevelt, must be repealed.

“When it comes to celebrating Columbus or Columbus Day we should just say no,” she writes. She proposes that Columbus Day be replaced by “Immigrants’ Day.”

Williamson, founder of The Peace Alliance and the campaign to establish a U.S. Department of Peace, has been doing much in the political realm other than promoting Sanders and writing about his “revolutionary” vision on the Sanders campaign website. She is sponsoring a conference in Washington, D.C. this month featuring such luminaries as Phil Donahue and promoting “personal peace” and the teaching of “peace in schools.”

In this context, a former teacher who is the curriculum editor of a group called Rethinking Schools and the co-director of the Zinn Education Project hasproposed the abolition of Columbus Day and creation of what amounts to an “Indigenous Peoples Lives Matter” movement. The name “Zinn” refers to Howard Zinn, the Communist Party member who rewrote American history in favor of a “people’s struggle” against evil elites.

While Sanders has embraced Williamson, even speaking at one of her “Sister Giant” feminist conferences, it’s not clear if Sanders favors the tearing down of theColumbus Memorial Fountain, which is located at Union Station in Washington, D.C., just a few blocks from Sanders’ Senate office.

What’s more, there are images of Columbus throughout the U.S. Capitol complex. One shows Columbus examining a globe and chart, using an octant, mercury barometer, and magnetic compass to plan his voyages.

The attack on America’s history as a nation of European immigrants is not new, although the involvement of New Agers and Bernie Sanders supporters like Williamson in this assault doesn’t get any attention in the press. Sanders is usually portrayed as a nice man who believes in a “democratic” version of socialism, unlike the Soviet approach.

However, many Americans are tired of the trashing of their nation’s European roots and are now pushing back against the attempt to smear the reputations of those like Columbus who brought Christian civilization to natives who practiced savagery and barbarism.

An interesting historical fact is that the Columbus voyages were designed to counter the influence of global Islam. “By sailing west, Columbus was aiming to outflank Islam, gaining access to the riches of the East so as to finance the retaking of Jerusalem,” writes Ben Broussard. “Since the fall of Constantinople in 1453 [to Muslim armies], while Columbus was still a child, calls had come from all corners of Europe to renew the Crusade. Columbus saw himself as the instrument to fulfill the longed-for end.”

While the politically correct major media avoid the truth about the reasons for the voyages and what motivated the discovery of the New World, bloggers are stepping forward to answer the question, “Why was Columbus looking for a trade route to the East?” The Citizen Warrior blog notes that “during its second great jihad, Islam had invaded Central Asia and defeated Constantinople in 1453, cutting off the overland route for Europeans. Islamic armies continued their jihad northward, and conquered much of what is now Eastern Europe, until they were finally stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683 (on September 11th).”

In his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), Robert Spencer confirms this, noting that the march of Islam had closed the existing trade routes to the East and that Columbus was trying to “bypass the Muslims” and make it possible for Europeans to reach India by sea.

The Order Sons of Italy in America (OSIA), an organization of men and women of Italian heritage in the United States, has vigorously defended Columbus in a report entitled “Columbus: Fact Vs. Fiction.” However, the report notes that since 1992 “special interest groups” have “used this 15th century Renaissance navigator to further their 21st century political and social agendas.”

Of course, we know these “special interest groups” are the anti-American and Marxist-oriented organizations whose agendas include denigrating America’s Founding Fathers as white racists who oppressed the natives.

There was a time when Democrats and Republicans honored Columbus and didn’t bow to political correctness. In a statement on Columbus Day issued in 1940, President Roosevelt declared, “The courage and the faith and the vision of the Genoese navigator glorify and enrich the drama of the early movement of European people to America. Columbus and his fellow voyagers were the harbingers of later mighty movements of people from Spain, from Columbus’s native Italy and from every country in Europe. And out of the fusion of all these national strains was created the America to which the Old World contributed so magnificently.”

The OSIA report notes that while left-wing activists portray the New World at the time of the arrival of Columbus as an earthly paradise, the natives “practiced cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice and slavery and suffered from syphilis, hepatitis, addictive cocaine use and cancer, caused by smoking.”

The Gibson film “Apocalypto” depicts the human sacrifices in dramatic and graphic scenes, as human hearts are literally cut out of victims and offered up to their sun god. A Mayan priest then chops off a victim’s head, holding it high and then rolling it down a stairway.

In a review, Dr. Peter Hammond, Director of Frontline Fellowship, writes, “By the time the Christians arrive, we have a far greater understanding of what life was like in Central America before the blessings of European civilization brought an end to the incessant genocidal tribal warfare, rampant slavery and human sacrifices of idolatrous paganism.”

The bloody pre-Christian paganism that preceded the arrival of the Christian missionaries is what is now being sold as a Garden of Eden that America should be celebrating instead of Columbus.

With abortions being performed in the U.S. at the rate of over 3,000 per day, and baby parts being harvested for profit, as documented by the Center for Medical Progress, one can only conclude America is already well on its way back to barbarism.

But Marianne Williamson, who ran for Congress on a “pro-choice” platform, thinks honoring Columbus gives America a bad name. That Bernie Sanders embraces her and gladly accepts her advice says a lot about the nature of the Sanders socialist “revolution.” Williamson calls it a “Revolution of Love” against a “sociopathic economy” that requires meditation. “Ignite the change,” she concludes.

Who will defend Christian civilization and Columbus against this New Age socialist gibberish?

06/17/15

Study Marxism to Understand Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s speech that launched his presidential campaign on Monday noted that Hillary Clinton’s “progressive agenda” includes the admonition that traditional religious beliefs “have to be changed.” Mrs. Clinton’s entire quote, in talking about opposition to her version of feminism and demands for abortion, was that “…deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Bush also said of the Democrats, “They have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress.”

But it’s never been the case that the progressive agenda offers real progress, as ordinary people understand the term. Instead, the “progressives” offer what Professor Paul Kengor calls cultural Marxism. This is the planned disintegration of the traditional family structure that has been the basis of Western civilization. Kengor, author of the new book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, told me in an interview that the progressives are guided by the belief that “new rights are coming all the time and that everything is in a state of evolution.” He added, “There are no absolutes for them.” Hence, the gay rights movement has now morphed into rights for so-called transgenders, as we see in the relentless media propaganda that is designed to convince the public that men can, and perhaps should, become women. Kengor says the next step is for “progress” or “evolution” to a new level that includes such concepts and arrangements as multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

It’s no secret that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s family structure exists in name only. Bill, the disgraced former president impeached by the House, betrayed Hillary and had sex with a White House intern. He is a serial adulterer. But the Clintons have stayed together for political reasons, so that Hillary can pursue her political career. Together, along with daughter Chelsea, this arrangement has generated nearly $2 billion in donations to a family foundation that now finds itself embroiled in financial scandals over where the money went, and what it paid for.

Looking back on Mrs. Clinton’s career, I continue to be struck by the wisdom of Barbara Olson, the author of the 1999 book Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Olson was the lawyer and conservative commentator who was murdered by Islamic terrorists when the aircraft she was on, American Airlines Flight 77, was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon in the September 11, 2001, attacks. The crash killed 125 people on the ground and another 64 passengers and crew.

I interviewed Olson on December 8, 2000, when I hosted a radio show in the Washington, D.C. area. What follows is an edited transcript of that interview.

Q: Do you believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Marxist?

A: I believe she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism. In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…But when you look at her ideas on health and education, you see more government and less individual control. You see very little regard for families…

Q: Do you see Hillary as in favor of Socialist-style thinking at the global level?

A: We saw that with her activities as First Lady. She traveled more than any other First Lady. She had a global view. She spoke at the Beijing conference on women. She was very active in organizations and conferences that seem to be concerned about human rights but which are also directed toward a centralized governmental view. That is, one world. I looked at her travels and saw what she was doing. I always assumed Hillary was going to run for president. And I assumed that these international travels and her work with the Beijing women’s conference and the U.N. were going to be her way into the White House; that she was going to have a foreign policy platform that not many women have…

Q: So you do believe that she will run for president?

A: I do. She believes her ideology to the core. She’s worked for it behind Bill Clinton for years. I have thought that Hillary was going to run for the White House since 1993 when I started investigating the Clintons. She doesn’t compromise. She doesn’t come to the center. She believes in a true leftist, Socialist kind of government.

Q: She portrays her causes such as children’s rights and women’s rights in such an attractive manner. She has put conservatives on the defensive once again.

A: She has. That’s the central focus of her public relations campaign…But her ideas about health care and education have very little to do with women and children. They are the lever she uses to bring the government into the family.

Q: She’s been pushing treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Isn’t she promoting global government?

A: Yes. We all know about her book, It Takes a Village. She says the future is not family but the larger village of teachers, pediatricians and social workers. She talks about raising children as less of a parental task than a social one…You have the destruction of the family unit. That’s very basic when you study socialism and Marxism.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech to the Women in the World Summit, where she spoke on how religious beliefs have to be changed, was significant for several reasons. The event was sponsored by Tina Brown, who launched The Daily Beast and later became editor-in-chief of Newsweek. The event was conducted in association with The New York Times, and included actress Meryl Streep and comedian Jon Stewart. These were the elites of the progressive media and Hollywood.

Typically, Mrs. Clinton talked about families at the event. “We know that when women are strong, families are strong,” she said. “When families are strong, countries are strong.” It’s important to understand this comment in light of her own failed marriage, which she has held together for political purposes, and how she has adopted the entire progressive agenda regarding how traditional families have to be changed to accommodate new sexual rights and new “family” structures. Olson’s book is still important in order to understand what Mrs. Clinton means by families, and how Marxists use family-friendly jargon to confuse and mislead. Kengor’s book is absolutely essential to understand how the progressive agenda would continue to transform the nation under a President Hillary Clinton.

Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign announcement demonstrated that he is aware of the political and semantic games that the modern-day progressives are playing on the American people. If he focuses on this Marxist strain in the Democratic Party in order to identify the forces that are rotting America to the core, he will find many conservatives receptive to his message. At the same time, if he pursues this course, the progressives in the media who gathered around Hillary Clinton during that April feminist summit will come down on the former Florida governor like a ton of bricks.

Will Bush follow up with a full frontal assault on the progressive forces destroying America? Or will he wilt under pressure and make nice with those prepared to destroy the country he wants to lead?