Mel Gibson’s Passion – Primetime Live interview with Diane …

Diane Sawyer interviews Mel Gibson about The Passion of the Christ in 2004. Sawyer’s husband was Mike Nichols, the overrated Jewish director who made lots of crap movies. I’m sure this Jewish family link colored her coverage big time. The media is controlled by people who are obscenely pro-Jewish, and they hire accordingly. The dingbat Sawyer squints in bewilderment at Gibson explaining basic Christian teaching. Lightweight “interfaith scholars” like Dr. Amy-Jill Levine (Jewish), pro-Israel Dr. Darrell Bock, and Nostra Aetate enthusiast Dr. Phillip Cunningham lie about Christian teaching on the Jews, claiming that the curse on the Jews no longer exists. This is a lie. A Jew is cursed so long as he remains a Jew. To remove the curse necessitates sincere conversion to Christianity. The former priest John Dominic Crossan whines about the extreme brutality of the movie. And the criminal Abraham Foxman appears to spread his usual BS, as if he has any moral authority. Not one real Christian was called upon to testify to the biblical accuracy of Gibson’s movie. Even with a stacked deck against him, and the inanity of Diane Sawyer, Gibson does quite well. The Passion of the Christ was not a controversial movie. “Controversial” suggests that people are divided about something roughly 50/50. Only a small percentage of people were bothered by the movie. But this small group is the de facto ruling elite and they detest authentic Christianity, for they know that it represents a counter-establishment that has the potential to unseat them.

Link:

Mel Gibson’s Passion – Primetime Live interview with Diane …

Related Post

December 9, 2017   Posted in: Abraham Foxman |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."