All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Is Christianity Today a Christian publication?

I like to follow the work of Megan Basham on Twitter and Daily Wire, because she takes the Bible seriously on moral and spiritual issues. So I was very interested to read her latest article evaluating Christianity Today. On the surface, Christianity Today presents itself as a Christian publication. But are their beliefs really consistent with what the Bible teaches? Let’s see.

Here’s the article from Daily Wire:

The media has long framed Christianity Today, founded by Billy Graham in 1956, as America’s most influential Christian news outlet. The Washington Post, for instance, regularly describes it as evangelicalism’s “flagship” magazine,” as does The New York Times. A review of federal election records, however, indicates that the views of the magazine’s leadership and staff may be far out of step with ordinary evangelicals.

Between 2015 and 2022, nine Christianity Today employees made 73 political donations. All of them went to Democrats. This tally includes President and CEO Timothy Dalrymple, who gave $300 in two separate payments to failed Georgia Senate candidate Sarah Riggs Amico.

Amico’s platform, which includes protecting abortion “without exception” and repealing the Hyde Amendment to allow federal tax dollars to fund abortions, contrasts sharply with the views of evangelicals who overwhelmingly say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. She is also at odds with traditional Christian beliefs when it comes to gender, sexuality, and religious liberty.

Along with declaring herself a “staunch LGBTQ ally,” Amico promised to support the Equality Act, a bill that The Heritage Foundation warns would threaten parental rights over children who believe they’re transgender. The conservative think tank has also said the bill would decimate conscience rights for medical workers and “cancel[s] religious freedom.” Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler put the Equality Act in even starker terms, saying it “represents the greatest threat to religious liberty in the United States in our lifetimes” and would “totally transform the United States as we know it.”

Dalrymple was not the only member of the magazine’s executive ranks to donate to Democrats. Natalie Lederhouse, Vice President of Advertising and Partnerships, contributed $50 to the 2020 Biden Victory Fund. The Federal Election Commission has no records of any Christianity Today executive giving to the GOP since 1991.

You might remember the Equality Act discussed in previous posts on this blog. Basically, the legislation would have made it impossible for Christians to advocate for Biblical positions on sexual issues. Not only individual Christians, but Christian businesses and charities. They would all have had to comply with the secular left’s views on sexual issues.

Megan also found this about a former NEWS EDITOR at Christianity Today:

Between October 2019 and November 2020, news editor Daniel Silliman made eight donations to five different pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ candidates, among them, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign. In addition to possessing a perfect voting score from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, Warren supported shutting down crisis pregnancy centers across the country, and her platform included requiring schools to admit biological men into women’s sports and single-sex spaces. She also pledged to allow a gender dysphoric nine-year-old to approve anyone she appointed as education secretary.

Silliman also donated to Renee Hoyos, Tennessee Democrats’ nominee to the U.S. House; Moe Davis, House candidate from North Carolina; Blair Walsingham, House candidate from Tennessee; and former Senator Doug Jones (D-AL).

As news editor, he would have been in charge of all of Christianity Today’s coverage of political stories.

More:

In another article in the run-up to the 2020 election, Silliman spotlighted President Biden’s Catholicism and quoted progressive theologian Richard Mouw opining that “[Biden] is viewed as having an authentic faith… when he talks about his faith, it rings true.” Silliman then tied Mouw to conservative Christian icons, Chuck Colson and J.I. Packer.

[…][Silliman] also covered the Fairness for All Act, a proposal that would have granted special privileges to people who identify as LGBTQ. It was opposed by conservative legal groups like Alliance Defending Freedom for “undermin[ing] human dignity by threatening the fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience.” Approximately three-quarters of Silliman’s report on the bill was devoted to those who favored the legislation.

You might remember that Mouw is one of these “evangelicals for Biden”. Now that we know the truth about Biden’s business dealings and connections to foreign governments, it’s easier to understand what sort of morality Mouw supports.

The new editor-in-chief of Christianity Today is Russell Moore, who seems more focused on promoting the Democrat party platform than with defending policies consistent with the Bible.

The root cause of the problem with these “evangelicals for Biden” is that they have never adopted Christianity on the basis of studying the evidence, and forming their own views. Progressive Christians form their views socially not intellectually. When they are young, they put on the cloak of Christianity as a way of seeming virtuous to their parents and those around them. They didn’t choose Christianity because it was the best description of reality. They were born into it. It’s not a worldview to them, it’s an act.

Progressive Christians don’t make a case for core Christian beliefs using evidence to non-Christians. They simply don’t know how to do it, because they didn’t do it in order to “become” a Christian in the first place. They don’t have any work to show, because they never did the work. And their policy views are the same. They don’t form their views based on reason and evidence. They don’t read scholars like Thomas Sowell, or John Lott, or Ryan Anderson, or Scott Atlas, or Robert George. They just believe whatever will make people like them – just like they did when they were children.

Is Politifact trustworthy? Is Politifact unbiased? A review of past rulings

Politifact is in the news again for labeling a true claim by J.D. Vance, the Republican candidate for vice president, as “false”. Let’s take a look at this claim, then we’ll see whether Politifact is a fact-checker, or just a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party.

The Media Research Center reports.

Here is Vance’s claim:

“I think it’s pretty weird to try to take children away from their parents if the parents don’t want to consent to sex changes,” Vance said Aug. 7 at a campaign event in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. “That’s something that Tim Walz did.”

As usually, Politifact concedes that the claim is correct – the courts can temporarily remove children from the custody of their parents. But, it’s got to be labeled “false” because this is an election year, and people who have failed at life need a bailout from the taxpayers:

Abels, the LGBTQ-issues “fact checker,” is funded by the Gill Foundation, a radical LGBTQ philanthropy. Last October, she worried out loud about “incarcerated trans people” being denied the “gender-affirming” stuff.

Last May, Tuquero defended Minnesota Democrats when they took expressly anti-pedophile language out of an “anti-discrimination” bill.

Grace Abels is a loser:

Grace Abels joined PolitiFact as a staff writer focused on LGBTQ issues in February 2023. She graduated from Duke University where she studied history and journalism.

Loreben Tuquero is a loser:

Loreben Tuquero is a reporter covering misinformation for PolitiFact. She graduated from Ateneo de Manila University with a degree in communication.

These people are losers at life, who have no marketable skills, and just vote Democrat because they want dentists, veterinarians and petroleum engineers to pay off their tens of thousands of dollars in student loans.

This isn’t the first time that Politifact, which is used by all the big social media companies to “fact check” speech, has been caught protecting their favored political party.

Let’s see some examples of past bias.

Arizona Senate Race

Politifact screwed up their fact-check for the Arizona Senate race.

The Daily Caller explains:

PolitiFact incorrectly labeled it “mostly false” that Democratic Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema “protested troops in a pink tutu” during its live fact-check of the Arizona Senate debate Monday night.

It’s an established fact that Sinema, a former Green Party activist who co-founded an anti-war group, wore a pink tutu at one of the multiple anti-war protests she attended in 2003.

“While we were in harm’s way, she was protesting our troops in a pink tutu,” Republican candidate Martha McSally, a former Air Force fighter pilot, said during Monday night’s debate.

Here’s their Politifact’s evaluation of McSally’s claim:

Who are you going to believe? Politifact, or your own eyes?
Who are you going to believe? Politifact, or your own eyes?

And here’s the photo of Kyrsten Sinema, protesting the troops, in a pink tutu:

Anti-war Democrat Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema
Anti-war Democrat Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema in a pink tutu

The Daily Caller notes:

A 2003 Arizona State University news article at the time described Sinema wearing “something resembling a pink tutu” at one of the protests.

[…]Sinema openly associated with fringe elements of the far-left during her anti-war activism.

She promoted an appearance by Lynne Stewart, a lawyer who was convicted of aiding an Islamic terrorist organization, in 2003.

Sinema also reportedly partnered with anarchists and witches in her anti-war activism and said she did “not care” if Americans wanted to join the Taliban.

And now for the big one: Politifact’s fact-checking of Obamacare.

Obama’s claims about Obamacare

Avik Roy, health care policy expert at Forbes magazine, wrote about Politifact’s assessment of Obama’s promise to Americans about keeping their health plans after Obamacare.

In 2008, before the presidential election, PolitiFact rated Obama’s claims about Obamacare “True”:

Roy writes: (links removed)

On October 9, 2008, Angie Drobnic Holan of PolitiFact published an article using the site’s “Truth-O-Meter” to evaluate this claim: “Under Barack Obama’s health care proposal, ‘if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it.’”

And she concluded:

[…]…people who want to keep their current insurance should be able to do that under Obama’s plan. His description of his plan is accurate, and we rate his statement True.”

Roy notes:

PolitiFact’s pronouncements about Obamacare were widely repeated by pro-Obama reporters and pundits, and had a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election. Indeed, in 2009, PolitiFact won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 campaign.

Here’s the screen capture from 2008:

Politifact caught with its pants on fire
Politifact says that everyone who likes their health care plan can keep it

Before the election, it’s true! And Obama got re-elected, because people believed that. But what happened after the election?

In 2013, after the 2012 election, PolitiFact rated Obama’s claims about Obamacare “Pants On Fire”:

Roy writes: (links removed)

On December 12, [2013] the self-appointed guardians of truth and justice at PolitiFact named President Obama’s infamous promise—that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”—its 2013 “Lie of the Year.”

[…][N]one of the key facts that made that promise “impossible” in 2008 had changed by 2013. The President’s plan had always required major disruption of the health insurance market; the Obamacare bill contained the key elements of that plan; the Obamacare law did as well. The only thing that had changed was the actual first-hand accounts of millions of Americans who were losing their plans now that Obamacare was live.

And the screen capture from 2013:

Politifact says: we were just kidding! Kidding!
Politifact said one thing before the election, and the opposite afterwards

So when Politifact rates a statement by a Democrat as true, what they really mean is that it’s pants-on-fire-false, but it’s election time so they don’t say that. It’s not like the critical assessments of Obamacare from health policy experts were not out there between 2007-2012. I know, because I blogged on every study and report on the predicted effects of the law that I could find. But the intellectually lazy journalism-major clowns at Politifact couldn’t be bothered to read those studies and reports.

Secular left journalists are the stupidest people on the planet. Stick with reading The Federalist and Daily Wire if you want to know what’s really going on in the world.

New study: Google’s bias in favor of Democrat Party affects search engine results

It’s election time, and a lot of Big Tech companies are using their products and services to tip the scales in favor of the Democrat party. Is Google one of those companies? A new study by the Media Research Center analyzes Google search results about Kamala Harris’ past actions and stances on political issues. Are those search results balancing conservative and leftist sources? Let’s see.

Here’s the latest report on the study from MRC:

Google is actively assisting Vice President Kamala Harris in maintaining her media honeymoon by keeping users in the dark about her radical policy views, including her support for abolishing ICE and threatening to end private health insurance, a new MRC Free Speech America study found.

The study revealed a staggering bias in Google’s favoring of left-leaning media by a nearly 10:1 margin in both Google Search and the Google News tab. MRC conducted the searches on Aug. 21, covering four search prompts across both Google Search and the Google News tab. These findings raise serious concerns about Google’s influence on the outcome of the 2024 election, echoing its interference in the 2022 midterm elections.

MRC completed the searches using a clean environment, discovering that Google has promoted left-leaning media sites at a shocking 17:2 ratio in Google Search results. The bias was equally pronounced in the Google News tab for search results, where left-leaning outlets appeared at a 19:2 ratio. This is a nearly 10:1 biased ratio on each tab.

MRC used the media bias chart by AllSides to determine the ideological leaning of the outlets featured in Google’s search results. Among the 19 media outlets that received favorable placements in the Google News tab results were The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, Slate, Vox and The Guardian. In contrast, only three right-leaning media outlets — The Federalist, New York Post and The Washington Times — were scarcely featured.

MRC also did a previous poll to see whether Democrat voters new about Kamala’s previous positions and past actions.

Here’s what they found:

A significant new Media Research Center poll finds that large majorities of registered Democrats and Independents who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 — exactly those who would be expected to support Vice President Kamala Harris in this year’s contest — are mostly in the dark about many of the controversial and radical positions Harris has taken.

When asked about ten different aspects of Harris’s public record — on issues as varied as her sponsorship of the Green New Deal, abolishing ICE, and eliminating private health insurance — between 71% and 86% of these Democrats and Independents said they either had not heard of Harris’s position or were unsure.

Where do you get your news? I read sources like Daily Signal, The Federalist, Washington Stand, and other center right sources. But I rarely see those sources in the first page of Google results, or the second page, or the third page.

The article notes:

When these voters were asked about where they got most of their news about political elections and candidates, by far the top answers were broadcast television (ABC, CBS and NBC) or cable news (such as CNN and MSNBC). This suggests that the knowledge gaps found by our poll reveal a failure of these outlets to report on radical positions once (and perhaps currently) supported by the now-Democratic nominee for President.

In fact, a detailed Media Research Center examination of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage in the three weeks since Harris became the leading Democratic candidate (July 21 to August 10) shows eight of these ten issues received ZERO attention from these newscasts, while two others received only minor coverage.

In case you’re wondering what the previous positions of Harris are, they have a list:

  1. Harris supported cutting funding for the police
  2. Harris co-sponsored the Green New Deal
  3. Harris supported the elimination of private health insurance
  4. Harris supported reparations payments to atone for slavery
  5. As “Border Czar,” Harris never visited a conflict zone on the border
  6. Harris said it should not be considered a crime to enter the U.S. illegally.
  7. Harris supported abolishing ICE
  8. Harris promoted a fund to bail out violent protesters during 2020 riots
  9. Harris would consider allowing death row inmates to vote
  10. Harris was named the most liberal U.S. Senator in 2019

I had blogged about a few of those in the past, but the one that shocked me was #9. I knew that Harris was ultra-leftist on law-and-order and border security, but I didn’t know she was that far to the left. No wonder Google, which has been caught many, many times supporting the secular left, is trying to hide those positions. And their allies in the corporate news media are helping.

Related posts

Image source: Media Research Center