CNN host Michael Smerconish tried to corner former Red Sox reliever Curt Schilling on the issue of President Donald Trump’s calling out ESPN for its double-standard on “fireable offenses.”
Schilling, now a radio host, was fired by ESPN in 2016 for a Facebook post about transgender bathrooms, while Jemele Hill’s calling the president a “white supremacist” resulted in the network defending its decision to keep her on board.
“The problem is, for me,” Schilling said, “is that they openly support what I believe to be racist liberal agenda platforms while denying they do, which is kind of frustrating.”
When Smerconish accused Schilling of using a shared photo to “besmirch an entire class of individuals,” claiming “that’s why you got fired,” Schilling shot back.
During his interview with CNN, Schilling stated, “I wasn’t fired for speaking my mind, I was fired for being a conservative,” strongly hinting at the fact he believes ESPN is heavily biased. He went on, saying, “she has no place in any platform that represents sports.”
Billy Graham and the emergence of Christian media.
From the start, Billy Graham was a media magnet and he knew how to use the power of media. Even most liberals and progressives (although there were exceptions like William Edelen and the Gaylor family/FFRF) could not shoot down this man who wore his faith on the sleeve and actually respected Graham.
Did you know that without Billy Graham, Christian media as we know it today might not have taken off and flourished? In his time and prime there was a Federal Council of Churches that consisted of mostly mainline churches and basically fought to keep “evangelical voices” off the air on both radio and even TV when it was brand new (follow the attendance and the money). When Graham became president of Northwestern Bible College in 1948, he through the college applied for one of the construction permits that the Federal Communications Commission approved of in the 1940’s. Northwest Bible College got the green light from the FCC and a year later KTIS AM signed on in the Twin Cities. Today Northwestern Media owns 18 radio stations (9 FM, 9 AM) and in honor of what Graham did continues to be the media outreach of what is now called the University of Northwestern. You can read more about Graham and Northwestern Media here.
Soon after Northwestern Media and Graham’s inroads into mainstream media, others quickly followed. Most notably Percy Crawford who began his TV program “Youth on the March” on the fleeting ABC Network who also carried Graham’s “Hour of Decision” on their radio network. In 1958 Crawford started his namesake radio company to buy up radio stations and carry full-time Christian formatted programming. Percy Crawford would pass away in October 1960, but his son Don and later grandson Don Jr. would carry on his legacy to this day. While Moody Bible Institute was in radio since 1925, their respected radio network did not talk off until 1958. The same year that the Crawford Broadcasting Company started.
Another important Christian broadcaster Dick Bott grew up in a Christian home and while no stranger to Christian evangelism choose a different path. After marrying his wife, Bott got involved in her father’s radio station selling ads that would air on the respected station. He would later buy and operate a secular station in Salinas/Monterey, California which Bott would eventually sell off. Bott was compelled to build a radio station on consistent Christian programming but with integrity and accountability. Bott bought a country music station in the Kansas City metropolitan area and quickly changed the format and call letters. The station that was KANS-AM became KCCV 760 AM “Kansas City’s Christian Voice” in 1962. It and its FM simulcast sister with the same call letters are still the flagship stations of the now “Bott Radio Network” which consists of now 118 stations that it owns. In 1966 Warren Bolthouse stated Family Life Broadcasting (aka Family Life Radio or FLR) which today owns 43 stations and is now based on Tucson, Arizona.
In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s Lester Sumrall made his inroads into Christian media stating with WHME-FM in South Bend, Indiana and later into TV with the acquisition of WHMB-TV in Indianapolis and later the sign on of WHME-TV in South Bend. These three stations laid the groundwork for LeSea Broadcasting. Paul and Jan Crouch started their own TV programming with would become known as the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) in 1973. The Bible Broadcasting Network signed on in 1971 with a single station in Norfolk, Virginia growing to 49 full power stations.
An FM rock station in Orange County, California KYMS 106.3 which could not compete with the more powerful rock signals of KMET (now KTWV) and KLOS in the greater Los Angeles area found its niche with the emerging Jesus people in 1975. In addition to Christian teaching and talk programs, KYMS also played the fleeting “Jesus Music” that was popular with that respected audience and while KYMS was not the very first Contemporary Christian Music station (that honor went to a station in Lincoln, Nebraska), it was the first one that was successful. KYMS’s run as a Contemporary Christian station would last for 20 years. WHME-FM would jump on this music and eventually spinning it off on a station of its own in the 1990’s. Northwestern Media’s FM stations and FLR would also adopt a CCM format in due time.
Radio broadcaster Bob Anthony also caught on to this emerging genre and would be one of the founders of Educational Media Foundation which signed on a single FM station in Santa Rosa, California in 1982 playing Contemporary Christian music. Today EMF owns and operates over 245 radio stations with its Christian music services K-Love and Air1. Another radio company devoted to Christian programming also was started up around this time. This for-profit company was founded by Stuart Epperson and Edward G. Atsinger III and they still head up this company we know today as Salem Media Group. In the late 1980’s Bob and Felice Augsburg started up what would become know as WayMedia and it’s Way-Fm brand which originally targeted Christian youth with Christian Music that appealed to that respected audience.
The list is almost endless with so many other Christian broadcasters over the years and many not as big as the ones I listed. For better and for worse the Christian media we take for granted, even in the new media likely would not have happened had it not been for Billy Graham.
We need to call it Liberty Control instead of Gun Control.
The current debate is over Liberty and Freedom, the national Socialist Left wants it to be about scary objects they don’t understand.
“She who defines the terms, wins the debate”
For all of their inherent faults, one must have a begrudging respect for our comrades on the national Socialist-Left in how they exploit language to very good effect. They enforce an iron discipline when it comes to the words they use to frame the discussion to their cynical advantage. An article in The Atlantic exemplified this with: Don’t Call It ‘Gun Control’. Or more recently in New York magazine: ‘Gun Control’ Has Outlived Its Usefulness
While we will never adopt it’s immoral base ideology of collectivism, it is time we maintained the same discipline in the words we use. This occurs in various instances, with the incorrect use of the term Liberal being the most prominent, but that is for another column.
The debate is rightfully over the cause of Liberty, so why not act like it?
At present the important point is that we use the term ‘Liberty’ in place of the word ‘gun’ in the discussion over the common sense human right of self-defence. It is the underlying issue of the debate over the 2nd amendment. A Pew research poll from last June showed that For most gun owners, owning a firearm is tied to their personal freedom. The best way to convince non-gun owners of this critical issue [ aside from taking them to the range having fun shooting an EBR ] would be to instantly frame the debate as being over Liberty instead of guns.
It is absurd to ascribe rights or controls to inanimate objects, but that is the implication when using those terms instead of the underlying issue. Consider some other essential topics of freedom such as the right to vote or the right to privacy, would we really talk about a ‘War on ballots’ or ‘assault search warrants’ instead?
Framing the debate over Liberty instead of scary objects the Left doesn’t understand.
The national Socialist-Left would love to keep this debate framed as one over scary looking pieces of aluminium instead of freedom. Even though polling has shown there are about 120 Million gun owners in the country, many have no direct experience with firearms. Still further many gun owners don’t have personal experience with every aspect of the issue. Sad to say, but many people don’t care about subjects that do not impact their lives directly. Never the less, they do care about the subject of Liberty, they can see as something immediately important to them.
Just compare the emotional influence of a polling question with just one word difference Liberty in place of Gun:
Do you favour more gun control?
Do you favour more Liberty control?
That changes the thinking from that of objects to one that personally impacts their lives. This Liberty instead of Gun phraseology also goes directly to the heart of the Left’s deceptive use of the term ‘Liberal’. Even if they don’t know it implicitly, both words have the same underlying meaning – they both come from the same root word after all.
It should be obvious why the national Socialist Left does things in a certain way with an iron grip on words being at the forefront. Revealing the underlying issues will cause them to lose the argument. So now, en mass they are playing games with language the use to avoid the word ‘Control’ but still framing the debate as one over inanimate objects. They’ve begun to use the alternative phrase ‘gun reform’ but this is still an issue over everyone’s freedom. Thus a phrase such as ‘Liberty reform’ will nail them to the wall as to their true intent.
The foreign press view of Liberty Control and Gun Confiscation.
A sampling of how the foreign press views the issue of the common sense human Right of self-defence.
The Anti-Liberty Left seems to have a false narrative for everything, including the common sense human right of self-defence. In this case, it is the rest of the world looks down on the states for it’s allegedly antiquated point of view.
However, a short perusal of some recent articles from the foreign perspective shows this isn’t quite truthful. Of course the Chinese Communists, ideological brethren in arms of the national Socialist Left were perfectly willing to offer their opinion on the subject that is nothing short of astoundingly ironic given their human rights record.
Curiously enough, the editorial from a government-controlled newspaper: China can offer lessons to US in protecting human rights sounds very much like the United States media:
If we look back in history, the US was founded on the use of firearms. The right to gun ownership is regulated by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Opponents of gun control argue that the Constitution guarantees them the absolute right to own guns. However, the situation of the US now is different from that of more than 200 years ago when protection of gun ownership was written into the law.
There is an urgent need for the US to impose harsh restrictions on gun purchases nowadays. The US has witnessed mad proliferation of guns and rampant gun violence. It’s estimated that civilians in the US own about 300 million guns, enough for every adult in the US. There are more mass shootings in the US than in any other country in the world. According to CNN, a 2016 study looked at 292 incidents in which four or more people were killed, finding 90 of them occurred in the US.
But the Leftists get things mixed up a bit with this little passage:
The US has no other choice but to adopt gun control. The right of life is the most fundamental human rights. The right to bear arms cannot overpower the individual’s right to live.
This from a collectivist nation without any vestiges of democracy, known for the deliberate mass murder of millions and the Tiananmen square massacre when an estimated 10,000 people were killed alone.
In Uruguay, a country where the possession of weapons is highly regulated, there are proportionally more deaths from firearms than in the United States (number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants). Switzerland, meanwhile, the third most armed country in the world, and where the acquisition of weapons is legal and (46 out of every 100 inhabitants have weapons,) does not have mass shootings or an alarming number of firearm deaths.
Someone could argue that it is precisely because of human evil that weapons should be prohibited. But such a person would be out of touch with reality, and unaware that in Europe the main “weapon” for mass murders is a truck or, should it fail, a sharp object. Would he also request a ban all types of vehicles and require plastic knives?
To find solutions you have to step away from naivety: if someone wants to kill, he will always find a way to do it, with or without weapons, with or without regulations.
This subject requires contemplation. For one, the Second Amendment is almost 230 years old, while mass shootings have been a recurrent event for just under 30 years. What happened in American society in recent decades? Are we not facing a kind of decline that plunges human beings into frustration and drags people towards violence?
Then there is this from the same publication on the issue of Gun Confiscation from Mamela Fiallo Flor, a university professor, translator, and interpreter, and the co-founder of the Cuban Libertarian Party.
On the experience of Gun Control in the home of mass murderer Che Guevara:
Far from reducing violence, disarmament monopolizes force and makes citizens vulnerable.
From a “social justice” position, the perpetrator is not the culprit but society as a whole and, therefore, weapons must be denied to all citizens. This is an inherited stance, typical of postmodernity, that denies the existence of the individual and his responsibility, and favors the collective.
But far from reducing violence, disarmament monopolizes force and makes citizens vulnerable, as the history of Cuba has shown.
Weapons for the Government, not for the people
We consulted with Rebeca Esther Ulloa Sarmiento, Cuban journalist and researcher, co-author of “Fidel Castro, the last dinosaur” and other political books, about what happens when a government takes away from its citizens the ability to defend themselves and how this process is experienced by exiles in the United States.
Ulloa says that Castro convinced the people that armament was not necessary. One week after seizing power, Fidel Castro said: “Weapons for what? to fight against whom? against the Revolutionary Government, which has the support of all the people?”. The audience present answered: “No!”
Officers, soldiers and revolutionary groups handed over their weapons. Later, many of them were executed or imprisoned.
Message to US citizens
It is precisely the great respect for the individual in the United States that leads to autonomy and freedom, Ulloa states. It allows citizens to achieve goals through their own effort.
She concludes that it was the Founding Fathers, the creators of the Constitution, who equated the success of the country to the sum of the individual success. Therefore, she urges not to allow individual failure to limit constitutional rights.
So much for the false narratives from the national Socialist-Left and it’s crusades against liberty.