Christian Broadcasting Network

Can somebody explain to me what this is?

I found this on CBN reporter David Brody's blog "The Brody File" where Brody makes it sound as if the video itself was produced by CBN: 

CBN sent out this video above in an attempt to draw awareness to the major problem of the rising deficit, the declining dollar, and the eventual threat to the long-term stability of America’s economy.

The video is very similar to the “Throw granny of a cliff”video by the Agenda Project, a liberal group who released their video a few months ago to suggest that Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan would ruin the lives of senior citizens through big cuts to entitlement programs.

The point of this video is that it won’t be just “granny” at risk if lawmakers don’t do something drastic about the debt crisis. It will be all of us.

It’s notable that the video doesn’t take aim at Democrats or Republicans. It’s simply all about getting America’s fiscal house in order.

This video is part of a movement within the conservative evangelical focusing on morality and the debt. Videos like this and other forms of communication have really exploded within the last few years.

We have seen a number of Christian organizations like the Family Research Council, American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Coral Ridge Ministries, and others warn people about the coming doom.

Let’s be clear: the debt crisis in our nation is a Tier A issue within the evangelical community, right up there with abortion, gay marriage, and Muslim terrorism.

The video is posted on a YouTube account named UncleSamAmerica that was started just yesterday and features only this video.

What does Brody mean when he says "CBN sent out this video"?  That they produced it or merely that they simply forwarded it? 

Either way, what on earth is going on when Pat Robertson's CBN "news" organization has begun producing and/or promioting political issue ads? 

Randy Thomasson of the Religious Right group Save California was interviewed by the Christian Broadcasting Network about a California bill that would make sure textbooks cover important LGBT historical figures in textbooks. During a sympathetic interview with CBN’s Mark Martin, Thomasson said that the reason Democrats backed the bill was because they are “sold out to the perversion lobby” and urged parents to “make plans to get your children and grandchildren protected from this brainwashing” by pulling them out of public schools before they are “sexually indoctrinated.”

Martin: Randy, why is this bill so dangerous?

Thomasson: Well, children should not be taught lies. Homosexuality is not natural, there’s no such thing as a gay gene, no biological basis. Homosexuality is actually unhealthy with a higher chance of sexually transmitted diseases, cancer, and earlier deaths. So why tell children ‘don’t smoke,’ ‘don’t drive drunk,’ ‘don’t take drugs,’ and then say, ‘well go ahead and experiment with homosexuality’? It makes no sense. That’s what this bill would do because it would hold up as a positive role model the homosexual, bisexual, cross-dressing lifestyle.

On May 31st, RWW first reported that during The 700 Club Pat Robertson likened his fight against Muslim civil rights to the fight against Nazis and Adolf Hitler, which was followed by a spurious denial by Christian Broadcasting Network. Such egregious comments are no surprise coming from Robertson, who in the past argued that “Islam is not a religion” and Muslims should be treated like “some fascist group.”

Robertson: I was thinking, you know, if you oppose Muslims, what is said? Well, you're a bigot, right? Terrible bigotry. I wonder what were people who opposed the Nazis. Were they bigots?

Meeuwsen: Well, in that day I think they were looked down upon and frowned upon.

Robertson: Why can't we speak out against an institution that is intent on dominating us and imposing Sharia law and making us all part of a universal caliphate? That's the goal of some of these people. Why is that bigoted? Why is it bigoted to resist Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and to say we don't want to live under Nazi Germany? We didn't hesitate to say the truth, tell the truth about the Nazis, tell the truth about Hitler, tell the truth about fascism, tell the truth, if you will, about communism. But, oh, it's bigoted if you speak out against a force that is slowly but surely trying to exercise domination over the world.

Now, Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman wrote a letter to Robertson taking him to task for his anti-Muslim comments and his comparison of Muslims to Nazis, saying, “the answer to your question may be found within your own statements.”

Dear Mr. Robertson:

We were deeply disturbed by your remarks on the May 31 edition of The 700 Club concerning Muslims in Europe and America following a segment on the growing construction of mosques on the European Continent. You asked the question, why is it bigoted if one speaks out "against an institution that is intent on dominating us and imposing Sharia law and making us all part of a universal Caliphate? That is the goal of some of these people. Why is that bigoted? Why is it bigoted to resist Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and to say that we don't want to live under Nazi Germany?"

Your statements here were troubling on several levels. For one, the suggestion that Muslims who, as you put it, "come into Europe and build their mosques" and "come into America and set up their schools and madrassas" are doing so in an effort to "exercise domination over the world" is a false notion based on hateful stereotypes of Islam. While you did qualify your statement with "some of these people," you then pre-empted it with a series of generalizations. In fact, many if not most Muslims in Europe and in America immigrated to find a better life for themselves and to freely practice their faith. Sure, there is a minority of Muslims with extreme views. But the overwhelming majority of Muslims rejects these views and wants little more than the ability to practice their faith openly and freely and to be accepted as contributing members of society. It is wrong to paint all Muslims with such a broad brush, or to portray all Muslims as extremists as you have done here.

Second, the notion that Islam is something that needs to be opposed in the same manner as people resisted Adolf Hitler and the Nazis is outrageous and offensive. Nazism was a racist and genocidal political movement unlike any other in history, responsible for the massacre of six million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust. One simply cannot and should not lump Muslims into the same category as Hitler.

So in response to your question about why is it bigoted for people to "oppose Muslims," to me the answer is clear: It is bigoted when one assumes the worst about an entire faith based on the beliefs of a few; it is bigoted to paint all Muslims (or for that matter, Christians or Jews) with the broadest of brushes when in fact you are talking about a many-faceted and culturally diverse belief system; it is bigoted to suggest that the Islamic faith has nefarious and sinister plans to take over majority Christian nations when this is false at its core. Sadly, the answer to your question may be found within your own statements, which I believe should be categorically rejected by all reasonable people.

Sincerely,

Abraham H. Foxman
National Director

When President Obama released his birth certificate last week, CBN's David Brody called it a "very good day for Donald Trump" ... so it is no surprise to see that his "analysis" of the news that Osama Bin Laden has been killed is dedicated primarily to criticizng President Obama not gloating enough while making the announcement and therefore "catering to thugs":

Around America late Sunday night and at the breakfast table this morning you can sure there were hugs, handshakes, tears and jubilation. President Obama’s HUGE announcement last night was a proud and happy moment for our country yet I was struck by President Obama’s words and tone last night. His speech made no mention of any sort of proud accomplishment and it certainly made no mention of how exciting this moment was for our country. I know President Obama understands that getting Bin Laden doesn’t mean an end to the war on terrorism but how about a smile? How about showing a little joy? How about a word or two saying something about how this is no doubt a happy or joyous occasion for Americans? We got nothing like that at all. Instead, we got Mr. Monotone. Mr. Bars and Tone. Mr. Non-Emotion. President Obama missed an opportunity to connect with Americans last night.

So why did he announce the big news like he was reading the dictionary? You know the answer. It’s because his speech wasn’t so much aimed at Americans. He was being careful of how the “Arab Street” would interpret his remarks. Any hint of gloating or happiness might be rubbing it in the face of some of the crazies in the Arab World and heaven forbid we get them upset! How dare we Americans look like we’re celebrating his death! The travesty of it all! Give me a break. Isn’t it time to stop catering to thugs?