"Did you know that Mormons do not believe in gambling? And Mitt Romney is supposed to be a devout Mormon."
What can you say about a "journalist" who would say anything as partisan and dishoenst as the above? Well, first you can say he is Wolf Blitzer. Yes, I checkedin on Wolf Blitzer's CNN (The Liar Network and The Anti-Christian Network) on Monday--one day a week being about all I can stand of cehckng in on the despicable Blitzer.
Blitzer made the above statement to a panel discussing the OVERHPUED (by PROPAGANDISTS int eh media, including the unfair and unbalanced network) "$10,000 bet" that Mitt Romney propsoed to Rick Perry in the ABC GOP debate. Wolf Blitzer, of course, is a LIEAR (on The Liar Network), but you already knew that. The suggestion that the Mormon religion opposes even making a rhetorical "bet" to try to make a debate point is rridiculous. ONly someone as dishonestly partisan as Wolf Bliter would even think of suggesting such a thing, but the whole pont ws towhoehorn RELIGOIN into the discussion. CNN, of course, has said that you are EVIL if you try to bring religoin into politics (see this blog's numerous previous articles on John kikng, Dishoenst Jack Cafferty, Anderson Cooper and all of the other anti-Christian peole of CNN--with future articles to go under the heading of a new blog SERIES title: CNN's War on the Christian Religion). Romney had been trying, in that debate, to emphasize that Rich Perry was misrepresenting Romneyh's book--where the original hard copy had a senttence that seemed to say that Romney thought his RomneyCare health care plan in Massachusetts should be the "model for the rest of the country. That senence was DLETED from the paperbac of Romney's book, and Perry said that this indicated that Romney WANTED RomneyCare--with its individual mandate-tobe embraced by the whole country. Romney was trying to get Perry--an obvious rhetorical deice---to "bet" that Perry was "right" on his interpretation of Romney's book. On balance, despite the Romney sentence being more vague than Perry seemed to assert, Perry was more right than Romney. Wh else was the sentence DELETED from the later versions of the book? But what does Romney being a MORMON have to do with any of this? NOTHING--except to a RELIGIOUS BIGOT like Wolf Blitzer, who also hapens to be a dishoenst, partisan political hack.
As I said, the very assertion that Romney's "bet" attempt was some sort of serious "gaffe" was ridiclous. No, I am sure Romney would prefer not to have given people an OPENIGN (sthe propagandists that Romney knows exist in the media) to say that only an "out of tougch" RICH guy would think of "betting' $10,000 without blinking an eye. Barack Obama is RICH. No one--including Romney--has ever concealed that Romney is rich. Romney's problem, as this blog has pointed out repeatedly--including years ao-is that Romney does NOT "connect" with ordinary people very well. But that $10,000 bet--wile hardly what Romney wanted to do--really has NOTHIGN to do with Romney not connecting with people. Nor is there anything "wrong' with this kind of rhetorical "bet". Sure, if Romney had thought about it, he would have added taht the loser would pay the money to CHARIT:Y. That, in fact, is the kind of "bet" that is routinely made by "celebrities" including political celebrities. However, Romney clearly did not want Perry to take him up on the "bet". The whole idea ws to "expose" Perry as knowing that he, Perry, could not back up what he was saying. All of this is mere BACKGROUND. The pint is that the media, including CNN, OVERHYPED teh Romney "betr" proposal as some kind of major "gaffe, which it ws not. But Blitzer was not content with even THAT dishonest media partisanship. As usual, Blitzer went the extra mile, and tried to BOOTSTRAP Romney's RELIGON--and the details of that religion--into this politcal campaign.
It is obviuios that Bliztzre was trying to accuse Romney of VIOLATING his own religion--an obvious LIE by Blitzer (since, as stated, it is impossible to believe taht the Mormnon religion really takes a position on using a gambling term to make a political point). Note that Blitzer had no Mormon "expert" on to support his disgraceful, dishonest, partisan assertion, but that highlights the problem of Blitzer trying to bring RELIGIOUS DOCATRINE into political 'reporting" (lol). Are we going to have debates on televison about all of these politicans who may be violating the RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES of their religion? What about Nancy Pelosi, and all of those leftist CAHTOLICS who are clearly vioilating THEIR RELIGON (this blog pointing out that Pelosi clearly does not believe in her supposed religion) by their postion on abortion?
Now my older daughter, in Boston, told me athat she perfectly understod how Blitzer was trying to USE Romney's religion against him in a vastly unfari and dishonest way. However, she did not see how I could say this was RELILGIOUS BIGOTRY. This is the same daughter, by tghe way, who pointed out to me way back when that Romney had been MOCKED for being "out of touch" as governor of Massachusetts, when Romney set out to show the Botston "T" was safe by RIDING on it (the Boston subway) as governor. According to my daughter, and this story was surely hyped by the partisan media and peop;lee of Boston, Romney made clear that he had never ridden on the "T" before by shwoing that he was totallly unfamilar with how to do it. I digress "sort of--n other words, this is a very old "charege" against Romney: that he is elitist and out of touch with the "common man"). I will explain to you, and my dau;hter, why Wolf Blitzer is a RELIGIOUIS BIGOT. Well, you alrady knew that, if you read this blog, but I will explain why this particular statement was an example of religious bigotry.
WHY did Blitzer bring up te subject of Romney being a Mormon? Why did he bring up what some peole might regard as the "straight laced" nature of the Mormon religion? It is the same reason that "Sixty Minutes", in 2008, actually asked Romeny whether he had enganged in premarital sex with his wife, in obedience to the supposed strict views of the Mormon religin on that subject. It is thte same reason that the despicalbe AP, in 2008, put out a serious, FEATURED article hysterically asserting that Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a POLYGAMIST (without, of course, mentioning that Barack Obama's GRANDFATER, and many otehr ancestors, were probably polygamists). Wolf Blitzer and the mainstream media belive that peole are SUSPICIOUS about Mormons. Taht does nto mean that they wil lbring the subject up about Harry Reid (majority leade in the Democrat controlled Seante), or even about Joh Huntsman. But Blitzer and CNN deliberately appeal to what THEY THINK is religiuos bigotry among voters by always bringing up that Romney is a Mormon. Blitzer and CNN don't want the voters to forget that Romney is a "devout Mormon", because they think that HURTS HIM. Now Blitzer and CNN will often pawn off THEIR PREJUDICE against strict Mormons on the "religios right", and suggest that it is the "religious right" that is "bigoted" against Mormons. They LOOK for anyone on the religious right who will lavel "Mormonism' a "cult". Notice, however, that Blitzer did not even mentino the religius right in the statement I quote above. That is why this particular stattement is so revealing. Blitzer makes it obvius that it is BLITZER who is a BIOGT with regard to the "strict" Mormon relgion. What about Harry Reid? Well, Blitzer and CNN do not belive tthat ANY leftist politican reallly belives in his religion. Further, Blitzre is MORe a dishoenst political partisan than he is a religious bigot. That is why CNN pushes the MUSLIM religion so much--a eligion which is MORE "strict" than the Mormon religion. It is not that CNN and Blitzer want teh MUSLIM views on homosexuality, sex etc. to take over American life. CNN simply thinks that is a way of being ANTI-CHRISTIAN, and even ANTI-AMERICAN (teh CNN thesis that MOST of America is compsed of bigots--a PROJECTION of CNN bigotry on the country).
No, my daughtter, does not know Blitzer and cNN the way I do. I assure you that Blitzer DID intend his remark in a BIGOTED way---trying to both suggest that Romney was disobeying his own religion at the same thime that he, Blitzer, was trying to DAMN Romney for BEING a Mormon.
You will ontice that I talk aobut CNN's War on the Christian Religion--which they conclusively showed in 2010, when CNN FEATURED Bill Maher in their attacks on the CHRISTIAN RELIGIN of candidates like Christine O'Donnell. But is Mormonism a "Christian" religion? It is is irrelevant, for both my purposes and whether Romney should be President (which I don't think he should be, but NOT because of his religion, as I am not a RELIGIOUS BIGOT like Blitzer and the other people of CNN). Does it not make my healdine "inaccurage", if I am putting his article in my "CNN's War on the Christian Religion" series, while Blitzer was really conducting a war on Mormonism? You can see how the very questin illustrates the BIGOTRY of CNN. This "questin" of whether Mormonism is really a "Christin" religion is a BIGOTED questin to raise in political analysis. No, I do NOT think that most evangelical Christians exclude Romney for that reason--certainly nNOT in comparison with somone like Gingrich. And Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are suppsedly doing BADLY in Iowa, where evangelicals are supposed to DOMINATE, even though they are the candidates MOST in tune with evangelicals--along with Rick Perry, who is also having trouble in Iowa. See why I call this PROJECTION? The BIGOTS here are CNN and Blitzer--not the evangelicals who obviusly realize that a good PRESIDENT for them is not necessarily someone who agrees with them on religin (even though I don't have anything againt a person of a certain religion giving FIRST consideration to someone who shares that religion--why else believe in a religion unless you think it is the RIGHT decisin which reflects well on anyone who makes the same decisin). It is not the PERSONAL choice that is BIGOTED. It is the attempt to USE religious doctrine as a WEAPON in political campaings that is a terrible thing. It is THIS of which CNN is totally gilty--religous BIGOTS that they are.
Obama is not a Christian. CNN hero Bill Maher and I agree on that pont, and we both claim to be agnostics. I, of course, am a TOLERANT agnostic, who believes that "skepticism" has to be applied to my own positon, as well as constituting an explanation of that position. Maher, on the otehr hand, is an INTOLERANT atheist, who wants to ELIMINATE religion from American life, root and branch (alons, reall,y, the position of CNN and almost all lefitst politicans like Obama, even as they give a "wink and a nod" while hypocritically maknig symbolic "bows" from time to time to the majority Christianity of this coutnry.
"But Skip, you just said it was an EVIL thing to try to USE religius doctrine in a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN as some sorrt of political weapon." So I did, and so I maintain. Yep. I jsut called Wolf Blitzer an EvIL person, and CNN an EVIL network. But there are towo points here taht I make in my own defense. First, I am NOT a Christian. That means that I do not "turn the other cheek". More imporatntly, although it is a related pint, there is the old legal principle (used in my former life as a tril lawyer) called "opening the door". Obama and CNN (alnog with the rest of teh mainstream media) are PUSING the FALSE assertion that Obama is "obviusly" a believing Christian. See the next article as to the incredible thing Blitzer did no Monday. To watch CNN, you would thiknk Obama did NOTHING but talk about his religious faith. This is PROPAGANDA< and definitely "opening the door". There is a variatin of this principle called "using a shield as a sword"". That is, if Obama and his surrogates are asserting that his CHRISTIANITY is a reason to vote FOR OBAMA, then they cannot be alllowed to then attempt to use the eivl of maing a pperson's religious faith a SHIELD to keep their asssertions from being challenged. It is obviuos that Obama and the media are DELIBERATELY trying to USE Obama's supposed "Christian faith" as a POLITCAL WEAPON for Obama. That kind of obvious propaganda cannot be allowed to stand. Now if Obama was obviously religoiious, like Michele Bachmann and, maybe, Rick Perry, that is one thing. But Bill Maher and I agree that Obama is NOT RELIGIOUS AT ALL--a secualr humanist.I refuse to let Obama get away with this much hypocirsy, backed up by shis sycophants at CNN, and int he rest of the media
It goes further than this, however. Note that Romney is NOT being "challenged" on whether he has FAITH. Romney is being challenged on the DETAILS of Mormon religious doctrine. WHY do peole of the mainstream media think they can get awya with that with Romney, or Palin, or Perry, but aovid the problem with Obama and other lefitst Democrats? Easy. CNN and the rest of the mainstream media do not think that leftists have any real religion other than leftist ideolggy (a corrrect belief, for the most part). What is Obama's SPECIFIC relgioin? You don't know? Well, neitehr do I. The only real SPECIFIC Christian religion he has had is that of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose main religion is "HAT AMERICA" and HATE THE WHITE EUROPEANS". CNN and the mainstream media REJECATED the idea of holding Obama to the SPECIFICS of Revernd Wright's religon, even the "blakc liberation" parts which might not even come uncer the "hate' descritpin. Thus, CNN and the mainstream religion simply refuse to tak about the SPECIFIC religious doctrine s of the religons to which leftist Democats professs to belong. This is both blatant dishoensty and hypocrisy, AND the beief that leftist Democrats do not really believe in their professed religion anyway. Thus, for CNN, a leftist Democatr "Catholic" is NOT "violating his or her religion" by contradicting chruch doctrine on aborton, whikle poor Mitt Romney is gong to be CONDEMNED if he were to admit that he engaged in premarital sex (at the same time it is suggested that his church is out of tough with most people by its attitude on premarital sex). This is all EVIL stuff, from the most dishoenst and corrupt--not to mention biogted--"journalists" who have ever lived. I simy refuse to leave the field to thses "journalists", and therefore I feel no guilt in continuing to tell the turht: Obama is not a Christian. He is a hypocrite who prtends to be a Christian for cynical political purposes. As an agnostic, I obviously don't think it mattters whether Obama is a Chiriostain in terms of whether he should be President. It does matter, however, that Obama LIES about it. It further matters that the media SUPPORTS such lifes. And it matters even more that the HPOCRITES of the left, inclduing those in the media, are perfectly willing to try to USE the SPECIFICS of the religious beliefs of conservatives/GOP politicans against them. In that nadscape, you are going to contineu to see this statement again and agiain in this blgo, wwithout any gilt whatever: "Obama is not a Christin, as Bill Maher and I agrree." As agnostics, we should recognize a fellow agnostic when we see one.
P.S. No proofreading or spell chekcing (bad eyesight). If I did not make it clear, to cNN the Mormon religion shares the defet of the CHRISTIAN religions against which CNN is AT WAR. In other words, CNN is jsut as much against Mormons who appear to really believe in their religion as it is against other Christians who appear to really believe in their religin. Whatefver teh purely religious aspects, it is obvous that "strict Mormons" pretty much agree with "strict Christinas" on HOW PEOPLE SHOULD LIVE THEIR LIVES. As sated, strict MUSLIMS pretty much agree with strict Mromons and strict Christains on many of these thigns, but CNN is not worried aoubt Muslims in America. Therefore CNN is willing to USE Musalims in the CNN WAR on the Christina religon--as well as to support the anti-American CNN view that America is fundamentally a RACIST, BIGOTED country (that PROJECTIN, again, as the main BIOGTS in this coutntry are peole like those on CNN--inclusind Wolf Blitzer)