George Soros

Gay Propaganda Campaign Takes Offensive Turn

April 4, 2013 By Cliff Kincaid 2 Comments

Offending the moral sensibilities of millions of Americans, Time Magazine is featuring cover stories showing two white homosexual couples kissing. The Right Scoop blog ran a “censored version of the offensive covers.”

John Aravosis, the homosexual activist who runs Americablog.com, said this is part of a propaganda campaign to normalize homosexuality. He said, “The kiss has been quite a powerful political weapon in the gay arsenal for a while now. And checking our archives, it’s rather amazing how important the ‘gay kiss’ has been to our political struggle over the years.”

The purpose is to desensitize people to homosexuality and increase acceptance of the lifestyle.

Media bias is also evident in the influence of the media-funded National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA).

The NLGJA says coverage of the homosexual marriage debate before the Supreme Court was “balanced—supportive even” and that program hosts “felt compelled to disagree with them [opponents of homosexual marriage] on air.”

We noted the media’s failure to cover the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C.

On the Time cover photos, the NLGJA said, “The black-and-white photos are an interesting, provocative selection. The magazine didn’t opt for family photos of smiling, nonthreatening gay and lesbian families and their kids: It went for the part of same-sex marriage that may be most off-putting to mainstream cultures. The kissing, the sexuality. It’s a bold choice for a mainstream publication to make.”

Regarding the story itself, the NLGJA said it “was largely positive, save for a colorful sentence about AIDS and bathhouses.”

The offensive phrase was that the deadly disease AIDS was “burning outward from the bathhouses…” These are places where anonymous gay sex is common. Homosexuals are determined to keep coverage of the health hazards of homosexuality out of mainstream media.

On his Reliable Sources program, supposedly devoted to media criticism, host Howard Kurtz featured two homosexual rights supporters, John Aravosis and Jennifer Rubin, who writes “The Right Turn” blog for The Washington Post.

Nevertheless, he noted the bias in the coverage, explaining that “Liberal commentators are thrilled that the marriage debate is swinging their way, at least in the court of public opinion, while many conservative pundits were muted or surprisingly supportive.” He cited Bill O’Reilly of Fox News declaring that “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” and dismissing opponents as Bible-thumpers.

The latter was apparently a reference to the Christian teaching that marriage involves a man and a woman and that homosexuality is prohibited in the Bible because it is unnatural and sinful.

Rush Limbaugh countered: “So how many of you who watch Fox are Bible thumpers? Do you think there are any Bible thumpers, quote/unquote, that watch Fox? Because last night you were sort of marginalized on [O’Reilly’s show] The Factor as not having a compelling argument and just being a bunch of Bible thumpers.”

Limbaugh also noted the influence of the “Gay Mafia,” which he described as “the activist homosexual lobby” contributing “big bucks” to the Democratic Party and leading the campaign for homosexual marriage.

Interestingly, it was Time Magazine that ran a 2008 story, “The Gay Mafia That’s Redefining Liberal Politics.” One of the rich members of the group was identified as Timothy Gill of Denver, the founder of Quark, Inc., a computer software company and a tech multimillionaire, who says he has singlehandedly “invested more than $220 million” in the cause of homosexual rights through his Gill Foundation.

An earlier 2007 Time story, “The Gay Mogul Changing U.S. Politics,” estimated his fortune at $425 million. Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli compared Gill to George Soros: “What you have are extremely wealthy individuals who aren’t personally interested in running for anything but have this tremendous passion. Like George Soros, Tim Gill is actually changing the political landscape”

But Soros, too, has a big hand in changing the landscape for the benefit of the homosexuals. In 2009, he financed the “New Beginning Initiative” to encourage the Obama Administration to make “policy changes” to benefit the homosexual movement.

The Gill Foundation is also behind “OutGiving,” which claims to have “provided unique opportunities for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and allied donors to gather in a private setting to engage in conversation with each other and with respected LGBT and allied leaders about ways to advance equality through philanthropy.” OutGiving says it has “inspired hundreds of donors to give more strategically and more generously to improve the lives of LGBT [Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people across the country and around the world.”

The biannual OutGiving Conference is said to be “geared toward individuals whose annual philanthropy exceeds $25,000 and who are interested in increasing the effectiveness of their giving in support of the LGBT movement.”

They are meeting in Chicago, Illinois this week. However, the event is by “invitation-only” and “private,” and “no media are permitted.”

Don’t look for the homosexuals in the media to blow their cover.

Media bias is also evident in the fact that 13 of the top 15 newspapers in the country have editorialized their support for homosexual marriage. The pro-homosexual American Foundation for Equal Rights identified these publications as:

USA Today
The New York Times
Los Angeles Times
San Jose Mercury News
The Washington Post
Daily News
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Sun-Times
The Dallas Morning News
Houston Chronicle
The Philadelphia Inquirer
The Arizona Republic
The Denver Post

The homosexual movement senses that victory is just around the corner. And Limbaugh himself says federal approval of homosexual marriage may be “inevitable.” But referring to the group’s March 26 March for Marriage, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage said, “Forget the media hype and confusion, our numbers today show that the American people are strongly pro-marriage and pro-marriage Americans aren’t going anywhere. This is the beginning of the fight to protect marriage. Our opponents know this, which is why they are hoping the Supreme Court will cut short a debate they know they will ultimately lose if the political process and democracy are allowed to run their course. Those who believe that marriage is the unique and special union of one man and one woman are on the right side of history.”

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: Arizona, George Soros, Rush Limbaugh, Supreme Court

The Unaffordable “Affordable Care Act”

March 29, 2013 By Roger Aranoff 1 Comment

The apparent costs of Obamacare are going up. And up, and up. How much additional cost will the average private payer see in the coming year? The Society of Actuaries, according to The Wall Street Journal, has issued a new report “warning that the cost of medical claims in the new individual-insurance market could rise by an average of 32% per person over the first few years the law is in place” with changes “very different depending on the state” (emphasis added). The Associated Press describes the study as a “political headache” for the Obama Administration rather than a headache for the average American.

With numbers like these it’s not surprising that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has finally owned up to the fact that the so-called Affordable Care Act may be producing something less affordable for U.S. citizens. However, she sells it as citizens purchasing a higher value product overall, which, for the poor, is subsidized by the government. In reality, government subsidies for health care mean that someone—usually from the richer side of the equation—ends up paying to cover for the poorer masses. “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” said Secretary Sebelius to reporters on Tuesday (emphasis added). “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

“Ms. Sebelius added that those customers currently pay more for their health care if their plans have high out-of-pocket costs, high deductibles or exclude particular types of coverage, such as mental health treatment,” reports Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal piece.

What Secretary Sebelius means by a “really fully insured product” is a low up-front cost plan where the true price of health care treatments are hidden from the consumer. Eliminating high deductibles in favor of a more indirect system exacerbates the economic effects that third-party payment has already had on health care, causing ballooning costs as customers purchase medical treatment irrespective of its true price.

“The people the law intended to help are actually being hurt,” Chris Self, owner of Pathway Health Insurance Experts, recently told Fox News. Yet some media outlets continue to champion the benefits of a law which belies its moniker. “In its third year, the Affordable Care Act will give Americans access to the health insurance they need,” reads the subtitle for oneUSA Today editorial by two Democrat representatives “In the three years since it passed Congress, the health law has helped dramatically slow the growth in premium increases by requiring insurers to justify large rate hikes and spend at least 80% of premiums on health care,” write Representatives Sander Levin and Jim McDermott for USA Today. But not all the provisions of Obamacare are active yet. Again, Rep. Levin and Rep. McDermott further the notion that subsidies will offset the costs of predicted increases. “What’s more, many will be eligible for new subsidies to help keep the plans affordable,” write Reps. Levin and McDermott. Where does the money for these subsidies come from? From the American taxpayer, of course. Claiming that subsidies offset costs ignores the source of this funding.

This assertion that subsidies can override the effects of increasing health care costs due to Obamacare can, and should be, laid at the Administration’s doorstep. “The Obama administration challenged the design of the study [by the Society of Actuaries], saying it focused only on one piece of the puzzle and ignored cost relief strategies in the law, such as tax credits to help people afford premiums and special payments to insurers who attract an outsize share of the sick,” reports Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar for the AP. The AP article also claims that “if you have an employer plan, like most workers and their families, odds are you don’t have much to worry about.” But in fact, many companies are topping off the number of full-time employees at 49 because with 50 employees, they are required to cover their insurance or “pay a $2,000 penaltyfor each uncovered worker beyond 30,” leaving the part-timers to fend for themselves in the mostly unrealized state exchanges.

There was even one speaker at the Center for American Progress—a George Soros-funded, left-wing think tank which has heavily influenced the Obama Administration—who demonstrated that he gets it. “The problem is we don’t understand this is an industry where the entire incentives are wrong,” said Giovanni Colella, CEO and co-founder of Castlight Health, at arecent CAP event (emphasis added):

“They [hospitals] make money because they can command any price they want,” argued Colella. “If you’re a big medical center you can go to the insurance companies now and ask for any price you want and you’re going to make money.”

In fact, “It is estimated that by next year, about 50% of U.S. doctors will be working for a hospital or hospital-owned health system,” remarked Scott Gottlieb in a recent editorial for The Wall Street Journal. “A recent survey by the Medical Group Management Association shows a nearly 75% increase in the number of active doctors employed by hospitals or hospital systems since 2000, reflecting a trend that sharply accelerated around the time that ObamaCare was enacted.”

Plus, there is very little understanding of what the impact will be of the additional 20,000 pagesof regulations that have already been issued in the name of Obamacare, much less how companies will struggle to comply.

It’s not surprising then that few states want to participate in the high costs associated with Obamacare. To date, “At the state level, most Republican governors have refused to set up insurance exchanges, and many have refused to expand Medicaid, which is the primary vehicle for insuring those currently uninsured,” reports Ezra Klein for Bloomberg. Actually, the number is 34 states, accounting for “roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population,” according to Michael F. Cannon, writing for The Wall Street Journal. The “[Republicans’] slogan, ‘repeal and replace,’ has given way to ‘resist and annoy,’” asserts Klein.

“Unable to get rid of Obamacare, many have settled on a strategy of making it function as poorly as possible.” With effects like these, can you really blame them?

Read more articles like this one at AIM.org.

Photo Credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: George Soros, Obamacare

‘Mainstream Media’ Not Mainstream

March 23, 2013 By Tom Ballantyne Jr. Leave a Comment

I never imagined that I’d find myself quoting Bill’s one-time heart throb (okay, eons of time ago), but using her just happens to suit my purpose. (Guess Bill and I aren’t so different after all….)

A persistent (make that constant) theme I have extolled in both writing and speaking is that as Conservatives we should not fall prey to the ingrained habit of referring to the all-but-obsolete establishment media as “the mainstream” or “MSM.” Could anything be further from the truth? Stop and think about it for a minute….

As I like to tell audiences, “You’ll never see [David Gregory or Katie Couric, et al.] at a Denny’s!” It isn’t going to happen!

Back during the Roger Staubach Era, the Dallas Cowboys were affectionately referred to as “America’s Team.” As one might imagine, such a moniker would be considered the gold standard in the world of marketing or PR.

Imagine that you are starting a new grocery store chain, and through a stroke of luck you become known as “America’s Grocer.” Could it get any better than that?

Imagine, on the other hand, that you are one of the “Big Three” television and news networks – NBC, ABC, or CBS. Imagine also that over the past 50 years your viewership has plummeted from a virtual collective dominance of 100% to, say, 25% of the “news”- viewing public.

That would still represent one out of four American adults watching, but put in perspective, three out of four “news”-watchers would have rejected your collective “news” coverage. Not very good!

While that was merely a hypothetical construction on my part, here are some actual numbers for “Evening News Ratings,” obtained at MediaBistro.com:

NBC – 9,640,000 (Total Viewers)
ABC – 8,628,000 ( ” ” )
CBS – 7,482,000 ( ” ” )

Those numbers combined make 25,750,000 out of the current U.S. Population of 315,497,649. The annual population increase is estimated elsewhere (by extension) to be .76%. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the number of adults 18 or over to be 234,564,000 in 2010, which would be roughly 240,000,000 today, in 2013.

Thus the “Big Three” viewers among the total U.S. adult population (over 18) would be approximately 10.7%…far less than my “guesstimate” of 25%.

One site I came across seemed to indicate that some 74% of adults watch at least some news program weekly. According to this site, “CNN (20%) and FOX News (18%) are the television channels adults most often turn to when they want news or information related to politics or public affairs. These are followed by the networks, including ABC (9%), NBC (8%) and CBS (7%). Other channels include MSNBC (5%), C-SPAN (3%), PBS (3%) and CNBC (1%).”

These figures – for those who watch news or “political/public affairs” programs, as opposed to strictly the “Nightly [Network] News” – show an aggregate of 24%of Adults watching the Big Three.

Getting back to the Nightly Network News (America’s staple before Cable and the Internet)…it would appear that my hypothesis was spot on among viewers ages 25-54, whose numbers looked like this:

NBC – 2,643,000
ABC – 2,328,000
CBS – 2,141,000

For a combined total of: 7,112,000

Removing those 18-24 (31,377,456) and those 55 and over (78,516,273), from the total number of those 18 and over (140,000,000), we end up with 30,106,271. Of that number, the 7,112,000 nightly network “news” viewers ages 18-24 make up some 23.6%.

I’m not sure, frankly, why MediaBistro.com chose to include a breakout for that particular statistical bracket – surely those over 54 are still keenly interested in what is going on in their country, even if many of those 18-24 are not – but in either case, the percentage of those watching network news range between an estimated minimum of 10.7% and a maximum of 23.6%.

Enough of statistics already, but I felt the need to support my thesis with more than just my opinion. It would be easy to dismiss my argument (that the Establishment Media is anything but the “mainstream,” and should not be thoughtlessly granted cult-like status by calling it that) as or as merely semantical or “academic.”

To do so, however, would represent a colossal failure to recognize the power of labels, or, in a broader sense, the power of language, or that of thought itself (the subject of my first book series, entitled The Secret of Life – Xlibris, 2008).

For those not versed in the science of the mind, the human subconscious (in contrast with the conscious mind) takes things we say and hear quite literally, as fact, as it were…especially when these “facts” are heard and parroted incessantly, by virtually everyone in the culture, on “both sides of the aisle” – including ourselves!).

Those of us who are parents may be keenly aware of the dramatic power – for better or for worse – of labels. While each of my daughters rightly considers herself to be her dad’s “favorite,” I have nicknames for each of them, as well as for our sons. For the most part these nicknames are more on the “cute” side – some having been derived from the inability of younger siblings to pronounce their older siblings’ names, for example – but one of them simply evolved from my repeatedly calling her “special.”

One day at the grocery store or doctor’s office – I wasn’t there, but received the report from my wife later on – an older woman complimented this particular daughter on her big, beautiful eyes, and asked, “What’s your name, little girl?” To which she replied, with the utmost in child-like sincerity and belief – “Special.” And from that day to this she has officially been known as “Special”…and it seems to have had a profound effect upon her life! (I am proud of each of my children, but I believe the success of this particular one has been directly attributable to the self-affirming “label” she has carried throughout her life.)

I will end my obvious point by reminding each of us that the Obsolete Establishment Media (or OEM) is just that. No, it isn’t 100% obsolete, but when less than 1 in 9, or 1 in 4 adults continue to “tune in” (perhaps tune out reality would be more accurate), it can hardly be called the “mainstream media” or “MSM.” Think of it: either 3 out of 4, or nearly 9 out of 10 “adults” are no longer watching – down from 10 out of 10 (of those who were watching anything in the way of “news”) some 20-30 years ago!

Let me underscore that in another way: 75-90% no longer watch the so-called (absurdly-called) “mainstream” media! So enough of the madness! (Those on the Left, of course, completely accept that they are the “mainstream” – even though polls clearly indicate that self-identifying “Conservatives” outnumber “Liberals” by 2 to 1 – 41% to 21% in 2011.)

Think about that: twice as many Conservatives as Liberals…and yet we refer to those extolling the views of the latter (a mere fifth of the adult population) as the “mainstream.” This is a coup of which both Edward Bernays , the “Father of Propaganda,” and his Nazi adherent Joseph Goebbels would have been extremely proud!

To be continued….

Tom Ballantyne is the author most recently of Uncommon Sense…Apparently! A Call To Arms, and Oh Really, O’Reilly! – both available at Amazon.com and at his website: www.UncommonSenseNow.com.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: Arizona, George Soros, Gold standard, John McCain, Saul Alinsky

Video: Progressive Insurance Not A Friend Of Most Americans

March 12, 2013 By Gabor Zolna 2 Comments

Peter Lewis, the Chairman of Progressive, supports George Soros’ agenda.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: George Soros

Tides Uses Tax Dollars To Turn America To The Left

March 11, 2013 By Breaking News 1 Comment

At the center of Washington, D.C., politics, a powerful group of left-wing activists has leveraged big money, high-level White House access and tax-code loopholes to create a lobbying organization dressed up as an educational nonprofit with the benign name of a laundry detergent.

The Tides Foundation is a favorite charity of such big-name liberal donors as Teresa Heinz Kerry (ketchup up heiress and wife of Secretary of State John Kerry) and Barbra Streisand. The two have given Tides more than $8.5 million over the years.

And Tides has a lesser-known benefactor: You. From 2009 to 2011, the most recent years for which data is available, the federal government has given Tides some $28 million in grants paid for by American taxpayers.

With offices in Washington, D.C., and Manhattan, the organization is headquartered in a nondescript peach-colored building on a hilltop in San Francisco’s tony Presidio district. Lucas Film is a next-door neighbor and the Golden Gate Bridge is a short jaunt away. Every year, from Tides HQ, the organization pushes $300 million through a network of hundreds of left-wing groups.

Tides says it’s working to “promote and support emerging social change and educational programs.” In fact, its programs are a checklist of liberalism’s most ambitious agenda: the Open Society Institute of George Soros, AFL-CIO, the Iraq Peace Fund, the Arab American Action Network, American Civil Liberties Union, the pro-Castro groups United for Peace and Justice and Center for Constitutional Rights, along with groups opposing free trade and gun ownership while advocating green energy and government-funded abortion.

Read More at watchdog.org . By Tori Richards.

Photo Credit: The US Army (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: abortion, George Soros

Gay Propaganda Campaign Takes Offensive Turn

The Unaffordable “Affordable Care Act”

‘Mainstream Media’ Not Mainstream

Video: Progressive Insurance Not A Friend Of Most Americans

Tides Uses Tax Dollars To Turn America To The Left

Help the Cause!

Stay Updated with Impeach Obama

Most Popular Today

Recent Posts

Impeach Obama Archives

Blogroll

Contributors