Leonard Pitts On Whether Fox News Treats Employees Differently Than Other News Groups

According to Wikipedia, Leonard Pitts, Jr. is an American commentator, journalist and novelist.  He is a nationally-syndicated columnist and winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.  Pitts wrote a column recently on the Bill O’Reilly controversy (and cover-up) about his exaggerations.

Pitts:

“Last month, when NBC News anchor Brian Williams’ career imploded as he was caught in a high-profile, self-aggrandizing lie, I suggested in this space that there would be much less angst or fallout if someone from Fox News were caught lying.”

Since then, Mother Jones ran a story questioning Bill O’Reilly’s claim to have been in the combat zone in the Falkland Islands while covering that war for CBS.   Other news organizations have reported other questionable assertions by O’Reilly, including the claim that O’Reilly was outside of the home of an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald when the associate shot himself.

O’Reilly dismissed Mother Jones as the “bottom rung of journalism in America,” and called the reporter David Corn a “liar,” an “irresponsible guttersnipe,” a “far-left zealot” and “dumb.”

Other instances of questionable claims include O’Reilly saying that he witnessed the execution of a group of American nuns in El Salvador that happened in 1980, even though O’Reilly apparently did not reach El Salvador until 1981, and he “saw photos” of the incident.

In his book, “Keep it Pithy,” O’Reilly states that he saw “Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs.”  Fox News itself denied that comment, according to the Chicago Tribune.

O’Reilly has claimed he was “attacked by protesters” while covering the 1992 Los Angeles riots for “Inside Edition,” but former colleagues say he is exaggerating an incident where an angry man took a piece of rubble to a camera.

‘Agenda 21’ Bill Rejected In Montana

An Agenda 21 bill was rejected in Montana by lawmakers this week, according to The Inquisitr.

For years, critics of “Agenda 21” have seen it as evil, ranging from bad policy to an erosion of national sovereignty to a sign of one-world totalitarian government grounded in radical principles of environmentalism and socialism, according to KXLF.com.

Wikipedia:

“The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is a legally non-binding statement of intent and not a treaty, the United States Senate was not required to hold a formal debate or vote on it. It is therefore not considered to be law under Article Six of the United States Constitution.

According to NBCmontana.com:  “Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution, signed by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1992, urging nations to conserve open land and steer development toward more populous areas. Some conservatives across the country see Agenda 21 as an indication of a United Nations takeover.”

The Montana Agenda 21 bill was sponsored by Sun River Republican Randy Pinocci.

It failed with a vote of 59 to 41. Representative Pinocci reportedly feels that the anti-Agenda 21 bill would have protected Montana residents’ property rights and would have rejected the United Nations sustainable development initiative.

Those who voted in opposition to the Agenda 21 bill in Montana largely felt that the U.N. sustainable development plan is merely a “list of recommendations regarding smart growth.”

They added that no citizens have yet come forward to complain that the plan has been pushed upon them or caused them problems at the local level.

Previously, Missouri and Kansas actually passed legislation regarding Agenda 21:


TYT Network

More here.

Huff Post: Right-Wing Catholics Come Up With Conspiracy Theory To Go Against Pope

POPE FRANCIS

NEW YORK (RNS) Was there a secret plot to elect Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio at the papal conclave last year?

Conservative Catholics have found a conspiracy theory to explain how a relatively liberal pope was elected.

The furor stems from a behind-the-scenes account of the March 2013 conclave, presented in a new book about Pope Francis titled “The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.”

In the last chapter of the biography, which focuses on Bergoglio’s early life in Argentina and career as a Jesuit, author Austen Ivereigh delivers an insider account of how a group of cardinals who wanted a reformer pope quietly sought to rally support for Bergoglio in the days leading up to the conclave.

The problem is:  isn’t it normal to rally support for your favorite candidate?

Ivereigh called Francis’ boosters “Team Bergoglio.” They were led by reform-minded European churchmen like Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor of England, who Ivereigh once worked for, and German prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper, who has become a trusted theological adviser to Francis.

At one point, Ivereigh writes that members of “Team Bergoglio” sought the Argentine cardinal’s “assent” that he would not refuse the papacy if the voting turned his way.

Why would he refuse assent? Is he supposed to refuse assent? The pope before him didn’t refuse assent when he was elected.

During the 2005 conclave, Bergoglio reportedly refused to take up the papacy when he was running second to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would eventually be elected Pope Benedict XVI.

However, in 2013, after the resignation of Benedict, Bergoglio “said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked,” writes Ivereigh.

In conclaves, cardinals often signal whether they would refuse or go along with an election, if it happened.

While overt politicking is strongly discouraged, and conclave rules expressly forbid dealmaking, cardinals often coalesce in camps behind one contender or another.

When Ivereigh’s book was published last month (he personally presented a copy to Francis), media accounts of the politics of the conclave prompted some to question whether Bergoglio himself was involved by giving the go-ahead, and whether that could undermine the legitimacy of his election.

But how could a pope give the “go-ahead” for his own election?  He’s elected by others, not by himself.

Regardless, Murphy-O’Connor’s press secretary wrote a letter to a British newspaper saying that no approach had been made to Bergoglio seeking his assent.

On Dec. 1st, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, issued a statement saying the cardinals cited “have expressly denied this description of events, both in terms of the demand for a prior consent by Cardinal Bergoglio and with regard to the conduct of a campaign for his election.”

However, Ivereigh said he stands by his reporting, but he regretted phrasing the episode to make it seem that Bergoglio had been approached about being a candidate and gave his backers encouragement.

“That never happened and I am sorry that I gave the impression that’s what happened,” Ivereigh told Religion News Service. “I think the whole chapter makes clear that he never had any role at all in his own election.”

Ivereigh said he was trying to show that as opposed to the 2005 conclave, Bergoglio’s supporters in 2013 “were convinced he wouldn’t resist his election.”

“The conclave rules do not prevent cardinals from urging other cardinals to vote for a particular person,” he added. “And indeed that is exactly what happens. That is part of the discernment that happens in a papal election.”

Ivereigh said he will be changing the wording of one paragraph in future editions of the book to clarify Bergoglio’s role.

Whether that will satisfy the critics is unclear.

Alex Jones Theorizes About Obama Assassination

Recently, conspiracy-theorist Republican Alex Jones, the host of InfoWars.com, speculated about the possibility of a President Obama assassination.

He explained that it could be part of a larger plot against the U.S. and a “false flag” used to blame Obama’s enemies.

As for Jones’ politics, Wikipedia states “In early 2000, Jones was one of seven Republican candidates for state representative in Texas House District 48, an open seat swing district based in Austin, Texas.”  NYmag.com calls Jones “America’s Leading Conspiracy Theorist.”

Secular Talk video.

Ebola Hysteria: Pastor Says Gay Ebola Semen At Starbucks

Pastor Manning, the leader of the anti-gay Harlem ATLAH Missionary Church in New York, talks about an outrageous Ebola conspiracy theory.

Kyle Kulinski takes a look.

Dr. Craig Spencer with fiancee Morgan Dixon

Inquisitr article:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1563446/semen-samples-found-starbucks-nationwide-fda-investigation/