Corrupt Media Cheer For Homosexual Rights

March 28, 2013 By 10 Comments

Liberal Media SC Corrupt Media Cheer for Homosexual Rights

More explosive evidence of the media bias driving the campaign to change America’s culture and Judeo-Christian foundations has emerged.

Speaking at a “gay journalists” event in New York City last Thursday night, Natalie Morales of the NBC Today Show declared: “Many of us here in this room—the media—we are responsible for opening the world’s eyes to these issues and the stories that have brought about such change. When you think 18 years ago when this organization was founded—think of where the country was back then. And now, 50 percent—according to the Pew poll that we talked about on the news today—support gay marriage, and…some other polls put that number even higher. [This] reflects a change in attitudes in this country.”

This was not just an event where journalists “came out of the closet” for homosexual rights; it was a fundraiser for the cause. Our media paid big money to participate as sponsors and hosts.

My associate Peter LaBarbera and I covered the homosexual rights fundraiser, held in New York City under the auspices of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), and saw first-hand that it was a “who’s who” of media stars from every major news organization in the U.S. They included Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie of NBC, Gayle King of CBS News, Christine Romans of CNN, Amy Robach of ABC News, and Amanda Drury of CNBC.

The really big star of the evening was Natalie Morales of NBC’s Today Show, who told LaBarbera in a brief interview: “I think what’s happening here is this is a new civil rights movement…And I believe that they should be allowed to get married and love equally.”

In her remarks to the gathering, she joked about getting a lesbian kiss. “Now I have to say I’m a little flustered because on my way in here I was actually in the ladies room, and making out with a woman,” she said at the start of her remarks. “She insisted I was Jane Velez-Mitchell [of HLN]…Seriously she was screaming and shouting, ‘Jane, Jane, Jane!’ And I was like ‘I’m not…’ But I just gave in because we all know HLN stands for the ‘Hysterical Ladies Network.’ And …it was a good kiss, I’ll give her that.” She also commented on the “queens” in the audience of the reception being held in the Prince George Ballroom. CNN’s Javier Morgado introduced her.

While the atmosphere was festive and “gay,” the New York papers were catching up with news about a new strain of bacterial meningitis breaking out in the gay community. This was something that nobody wanted to talk about, at least publicly.

Contessa Brewer, formerly an anchor at MSNBC, was a major star, posing for pictures before declaring her support for homosexual rights and homosexual marriage and denouncing opponents of such as the equivalent of racists. She wanted my associate Peter LaBarbera to know, in a brief interview captured on camera, that she felt this way even though she was the daughter of a Baptist preacher.

Here is the transcript:

Peter LaBarbera: “I’m Peter LaBarbera with Americans For Truth. We’re sort of on the other side of the issue. We’re for traditional marriage and so forth….My question is: for some in the media, are you afraid that there’s not fair coverage for the other side—[that] now it’s veering so far the other way…that sometimes there’s a tendency to—”

Brewer: “You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter. I think that there’s a difference between being objective and being fair. And sometimes wrong is wrong, and the right thing to do is say when it’s wrong.”

LaBarbera: “A lot of Christians, for example, think that racism is a sin, but they also think that homosexuality [is a sin].”

Brewer: “You know what I say? I grew up as the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and you know what my answer always is? If you think it’s wrong, then don’t do it. Thank you [she walks away].”

NBCUniversal was the big host, with other media sponsors Bloomberg, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, BuzzFeed, The New York Times, and Newsday. Company sponsors were Vodka maker Voli, JetBlue, Heineken, Hillshire, Eli Lilly and Company, General Motors, the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, and Fleishman-Hillard.

The new president of the NLGJA is Jen Christensen of CNN, who previously worked on CNN’s “Special Investigations Unit.” She says, “We are not an advocacy group,” referring to the NLGJA. But the entire evening was advocacy. There was no pretense of being even-handed in covering the homosexual rights movement, of which they are clearly a major part.

It is worthwhile to examine the nature and depth of the bias as the Supreme Court takes up important court cases on homosexual rights because of the influence of the major media in bringing the country to this point in time. This event was concrete evidence of the bias from those in the media who have driven the campaign for homosexual rights for decades.

Morales was ecstatic: “What a difference a year makes. Think about where we were just even a year ago—all that has happened in the news for the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] community in particular: the repeal of the military’s ban on gays and lesbians, the widening support for same-sex marriage. The world seems to be evolving slowly but surely—from the President changing his position [on same-sex marriage] last year, to most recently this week…former Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton now saying gays and lesbians are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. And last week of course Republican Senator Rob Portman said he now supports gay marriage because he wants his son, who is gay, to have the same rights to love equally. I mean this of course is 2013 but it is happening.”

Even though this event featured all kinds of media celebrities, you will not find the media reporting on themselves because it would blow their cover—and blow the whistle on the bias they are implementing on a day-to-day basis. That is why Peter LaBarbera and I covered the event. We figured the media would not hesitate to pat each other on the backs.

Now that the nature of the bias is evident for everyone to see, however, the bias will take another turn as journalists will ignore the evidence that the major media have taken one side of the debate. What is significant is the lack of any real major media opposition to this bias.

Photo credit: wstera2 (Creative Commons)

No related posts.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Confirmed: Taxpayers Lose Billions On Obama Auto Bailout

December 20, 2012 By 1 Comment

Barack Obama 11 SC Confirmed: Taxpayers Lose Billions On Obama Auto Bailout

Washington — The Obama administration said Wednesday it will sell 200 million shares — or 40 percent of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. — back to the automaker and announced plans to completely exit the Detroit automaker by March 2014.

The Detroit automaker said it will purchase 200 million shares of GM stock held by Treasury for $5.5 billion — or $27.50 per share — nearly $2 above the stock’s closing price on Tuesday. GM shares jumped sharply on the news and were up 7.5 percent to $27.36, or $1.90, early afternoon in very heavy trading.

The U.S. Treasury, after more than a year of refusing to say when it might start selling its remaining stake in GM, said it willannounce a written plan in January to shed its remaining 300 million shares over the next 12 to 15 months, likely in a series of small stock sales.

The Treasury’s move is intended to minimize the impact of the stock sale on the share price — and the government’s state will shrink from 26.5 percent to less than 19 percent — but the exit could be completed far more quickly.

The exit plan may prove to be a boost to GM’s lagging stock price and to some car buyers, who have avoided GM because of the “Government Motors” label.

Read More at detroitnews.com . By David Shepardson.

Photo Credit: Geoff Livingston (Creative Commons)

Related posts:

  1. Report: Auto Bailout Cost Taxpayers $3.4B More Than Estimated The federal government’s bailout of the auto industry will cost…
  2. GM’s Profits Might Go To Unions Instead Of Taxpayers Three years after being rescued by a taxpayer bailout, General…
Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With:

Intelligence And National Security Priorities

October 17, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Barack Obama Phone SC Intelligence and National Security Priorities

A generation ago, in the 1970s, the U.S. intelligence community possessed the technology to discern whether or not a U.S. consulate was under attack by terrorists or by rioters run amok. Moreover, no one in the community ever wanted a superior, especially at the highest levels, to point to an article in the Washington Post or something they saw on television and ask, “What’s this all about?”

I know this, because I lived it—at the time and in the military.

In the ‘70s, intelligence priorities were focused on the Soviet Union, China, and the Communist bloc; nonetheless, an attack on a U.S. consulate would have prompted an immediate call directly to the secretary of state. If an ambassador were murdered, the secretary of state would have been informed, even awakened. It’s likely the next call would have gone to the White House.

Every year, the White House publishes its National Security Strategy of the United States, setting the nation’s security agenda. From the start, the Obama administration erased the term “War on Terror” from the national-security lexicon. In recent months, the narrative has revolved around “Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” establishing a false syllogism between two disparate and unrelated events nevertheless reflecting national-security priorities … as well as a muddled, uncertainty in priorities.

The attacks in Benghazi started late on the night of September 11. For Americans, the time difference between Washington and Libya put the attacks at the close of a day marked by remembrances for 9/11 victims.

It is inconceivable that the intelligence community, including watch officers at Langley, the Pentagon, and in the White House, were unaware that the attack was a well-coordinated, military-style operation, one far more powerful and concentrated than the intrusion by a squad of Viet Cong commandos into the compound of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon at the onset of the Tet Offensive in 1968.

There are established intelligence protocols for passing information “up the line.” Watch officers surely contacted their immediate supervisors—even if it meant interrupting their evening—along with appropriate area specialists. The decision to continue the notification rests with officials at various levels, so it is not inconceivable that the president of the United States would not be informed immediately of such an attack. It’s quite likely that his national security advisor and Secretary of State Clinton were informed. The claim of “evincible ignorance” involves a two-edge sword. While the highest levels of the U.S. government may have been uninformed at 7:00 p.m. on the night of September 11, a dozen hours later, analysts should have had time to sift through the “fog of war” with a good approximation of what happened and who was behind it.

This is where the story gets muddled. A riot in Cairo on 9/11, attributable to an obscure internet video publicized for political purposes by the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, made for a quick and convenient cover story to explain the tragedy in Benghazi. It also fit the political narrative that with Bin Laden dead, al Qaeda was “on the run.” Tragedy in Benghazi notwithstanding, it was time to get on with the main focus of the Obama administration, ensuring another four years to affect change, hopefully for the better—something that eluded the administration in its first four years.

The video scapegoat worked well, given that if it didn’t emanate from a crackpot right-winger with Tea Party sympathies, it probably did issue from a crackpot who by extension or implication reflects the kind of injudicious and inconvenient opinions the administration attributes to its opponents. That the Republican candidate Mitt Romney dared to criticize the administration in the wake of a tragedy costing the lives of four Americans offered the opportunity for trivializing criticism, especially when the root cause might be pinned on an internet video.

The intelligence community knew what happened in Benghazi. While it’s possible that President Obama wasn’t immediately informed, it’s less likely that the secretary of state was not told as soon as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ fate was known. Only the most egregious mishandling of intelligence would have prevented the president from getting the right information at the next briefing, which should have occurred the following morning, almost 12 hours after the event.

It comes down to a matter of priorities. Clearly, this administration’s reluctance to deal with the realities of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism, even under the admittedly weak description of a “War on Terror,” and its insistence that “al Qaeda is on the run” reflect a denial of reality. The White House reaction to the Benghazi debacle is amateurish at best.

 

Dr. Earl Tilford is a military historian and fellow for the Middle East & terrorism with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He currently lives in Tuscaloosa, Alabama where he is writing a history of the University of Alabama in the 1960s. A retired Air Force intelligence officer, Dr. Tilford earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University. From 1993 to 2001, he served as Director of Research at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute. In 2001, he left Government service for a professorship at Grove City College, where he taught courses in military history, national security, and international and domestic terrorism and counter-terrorism.

©2012 The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College

Related posts:

  1. Navy Seals Out Obama Adim. As National Security Risk Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at…
  2. Obama’s Intelligence Brief Scandal The last few weeks have produced many intriguing political moments, but none…
Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

Ryan Effectively Spars With Animated Biden At VP Debate

October 12, 2012 By 2 Comments

Paul Ruan SC Ryan effectively spars with animated Biden at VP debate

On the heels of a decisive GOP victory at the first presidential debate, VP candidate Paul Ryan generally met high expectations by going on the offensive early and often during Thursday night’s match-up against Joe Biden.

To be fair, Biden bested his boss’ dismal performance by staying true to his identity as a bombastic, old-school politician. Infinitely more animated than Obama, he frequently interrupted his Republican rival and grinned widely while Ryan spoke.

Though he steered clear of any glaringly obtuse gaffes, responses filled with long pauses and continual usage of “uh” and “um” stood in stark contrast to the obvious depth of knowledge Ryan brought to the event. While regularly referring to Ryan as “my friend,” Biden treated him dismissively while the challenger conducted himself with the character to effectively fill the nation’s second-highest executive position.

Given moderator Martha Raddatz’s history with Obama, she fostered a fairly balanced environment for the exchange of verbal jabs. Of course, I am comparing her to Jim Lehrer’s method — however ineffective — of holding Obama’s hand and prompting him to give a somewhat coherent response.

Raddatz began the debate, a more relaxed setup as both she and the candidates sat around a large desk, with the terrorist attacks in Libya exactly one month ago. An experienced foreign correspondent, Raddatz’s first asked Biden if the entire ordeal was a “massive intelligence failure.”

Ryan weighed in on the issue, mentioning the six references Obama made to the United Nations council concerning the YouTube video originally blamed for the violence. He immediately struck back with the absurdity of placing armed guards outside of the U.S. Embassy in Paris but not providing the same in Libya.

“What we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,” he said, saying the president’s position “promotes weakness abroad.”

Biden blamed Romney for prematurely blaming the current administration’s foreign policy failures for the atmosphere of violence, to which Ryan retorted, “It’s never too early to speak up for our values.”

Continuing in the foreign policy vein, Raddatz asked the candidates about Iran’s nuclear program.

Ryan expertly dissected the last four years of Obama failure, stating the Iranian program can feasibly produce five times more nuclear weapons than it could prior to his election.

“This administration has no credibility on this issue,” he said.

Biden tried to defend the Democrats’ opposition to imposing strong sanctions on Iran, saying they would not have been supported by the rest of the world. The eternal leftist, he wants to see America liked rather than respected. Ryan, on the other hand, seems to think we can have both.

When Biden suggested Iran is not a threat because they do not currently possess a weapon with which to use its nuclear material, Raddatz shot back with her own zinger, saying, “You’re acting a little bit like they don’t want one!”

Obama’s failed promise to return unemployment to below 6 percent was the topic Raddatz used to bring the debate back to U.S. soil, asking each candidate what they would do to reach that goal.

While Biden rested on his party’s supposed laurels, touting how Obama “saved” General Motors, he also found a way to make the first mention of Romney’s off-the-cuff “47 percent” comment.

“I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way,” Ryan said without missing a beat.

In response to the question, Ryan touched on each of his ticket’s five-point plan to add 12 million jobs and achieve 4 percent economic growth. Biden scored some points in return when, after Ryan disparaged Obama’s stimulus plan, he brought up the fact that Ryan sought stimulus funds twice for his constituents.

The candidates explained differences of opinion concerning Medicare, which prompted Ryan to bring up the massive fund transfer from Medicare to ObamaCare the Democrats recently approved.

“They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, turning Medicare into a piggybank for ObamaCare,” he said, attempting to speak over Biden’s attempts to interrupt him. “I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but I think people would be better served if we stop interrupting each other.”

Ryan performed well throughout the debate; but when the subject of taxes was broached, he was really able to shine. Attacking the Democrat plan to raise top tax rates to nearly 45 percent, he explained, “There aren’t enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending.”

Spewing facts faster than Biden could process them, Ryan brought up the 8 out of 10 small business filing taxes as individuals, the two-thirds of all jobs that are created by those small businesses, and the fallacy of taxing them completely out of business.

Raddatz asked what role the two candidates’ religion — Catholicism — plays in their views on abortion. Ryan’s principled view, reinforced when he saw the heartbeat of his firstborn child during a sonogram, is that life begins at conception and should be protected at all costs. While Biden claims to share the same view, he apparently has no qualms about allowing Americans to readily destroy that life. In technical terms, I believe that is called homicide.

Both candidates reportedly took debate preparation seriously; but Ryan, less experienced in such high-profile debates, seemed much more in control of his responses. His exceptional discipline, both personally and politically, was on display as he made easy work of Biden’s bombastic attacks with his own barrage of facts.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

 

Related posts:

  1. Biden Debate Prep ©2012 Gary McCoy, Cagle Cartoons… Continue to Post…
  2. Ryan To Biden: If You’re Protecting Catholics, Why Are They Suing You? Paul Ryan had perhaps the question of the night when…
Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Video: Electric Shock: Is GM Really Losing $49,000 On Every Chevy Volt?

September 14, 2012 By Leave a Comment

According to a recent report, General Motors is losing big money on the Chevy Volt, as much as $49,000 per car. Why has the federal government invested in General Motors, and why is the Pentagon stocking up new Chevy Volts?

Related posts:

  1. Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up To $250K Per Vehicle Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much…
  2. Chevy Volt: Solyndra On Wheels “I absolutely love my Chevy Volt.” That’s what the smug…

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:
« Older Posts