Posts Tagged ‘Corrupt Media’

Corrupt Media Cheer for Homosexual Rights

by Cliff Kincaid on Tuesday, March 26th, 2013

This is article 44 of 64 in the topic Gay Rights

On the eve of Tuesday’s “March for Marriage” in Washington, to coincide with Supreme Court consideration of court cases on 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 also 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.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post


by Burt Prelutsky on Friday, September 21st, 2012

This is article 979 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections

by Burt Prelutsky

It’s not often I get to feel sorry for a multi-millionaire, but my heart goes out to Mitt Romney. Thanks to Team Obama working in cahoots with a corrupt media, he gets slammed no matter what he does. If he generalizes about his plans as president, he gets hit for being vague. But when he comes out with a five-point program, he gets no credit.

When he was asked in London, as someone who had once run an Olympics Game, what he thought about the security set-up for the 2012 event, he gave an honest answer and what turned out to be a factual appraisal. So, naturally, the media accused him of making a major gaffe, instead of praising him for not being a typical sweet-talking phony.

When he went to Israel and said that the difference between the success enjoyed by the Jews and the failure of the Palestinians was the difference between the two cultures, he was accused of insensitivity. But once again his only sin was in telling the truth.

More recently, a video of Romney speaking at a fund raiser went viral. In his remarks, he said that 47% of Americans are dependent on the federal government and, as a result, probably will not vote for him. Now he may have been off by a bit, and he may have inadvertently included retired people on Social Security who are not paying federal income taxes, but his message in the main was absolutely correct. People who believe that the government owes them something for no other reason than that they’re breathing do make up the base of Obama’s support.

That base, which includes inner-city blacks, illegal aliens, public sector union members and college students — particularly those wasting their time and their parents’ money pursuing degrees in the liberal arts — all feel themselves entitled to the largesse of the American taxpayer.

I had no doubt that the Democrats would try to make hay off his comments, particularly among the elderly who are living off Social Security. But theirs happen to be the exception to the rule because they paid into the system. All those other government checks, along with food stamps, are referred to as “means-tested.” In other words, people are expected to prove that they need these bribes in order to survive I think it is fairly obvious, even to liberals, that those are the folks Romney was referring to; in the same way, when people refer disparagingly to single mothers, they mean those who never bothered getting married, not widows and divorcees.

Finally, Romney did not, as Obama’s campaign manager insisted, write off Obama’s groupies; he merely identified them.

The difference between Obama and Romney or between Obama and any normal American is that he lies so shamelessly. For instance, at a recent campaign stop, he started a sentence by saying, “When I travel around the country and meet with Republicans…” I want to know exactly where these meetings took place. The only time you see him meeting with anyone is when he’s bloviating to a crowd of worshippers. Hell, this fraud doesn’t even speak to the Republicans in Congress, unless it’s to tell them to sit down, shut up and get out of his way.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post


by Burt Prelutsky on Monday, March 12th, 2012

This is article 533 of 1015 in the topic Obama

by BurtPrelutsky

I sometimes think that Republicans are genetically compelled to bring water pistols to a gun fight. While I acknowledge that it’s difficult to combat the bully pulpit the Left commands, thanks to a corrupt media, I really am sick and tired of hearing Mitch McConnell referring to “Our friends on the other side of the aisle.” Harry Reid is not your friend. Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin, are not your friends. What’s more, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Dianne Feinstein, are not going to the prom with you. Get over it.

What I would like to know is why it is that the Democrats get to conduct recall campaigns against Governor Scott Walker and his Republican colleagues in the Wisconsin state legislature, but Republicans never return the favor. When liberal governors and left-wing state legislators push for same-sex marriages, ObamaCare and abortions on demand for 14-year-olds, why aren’t we forcing them to devote their time and money to fighting recall elections?

How is it that when liberal members of state senates and assemblies roll over during negotiations with public service unions, driving their states into inevitable bankruptcy, they do so with impunity? I understand they are not motivated by a commitment to the labor movement, but because they want to be able to count on union volunteers and union funds when they inevitably run for re-election. But why don’t we ever disrupt the honeymoon by recalling their sorry carcasses?

I’d also like to know why no Republican in Congress ever accuses Obama of anything worse than incompetence. When it comes to making repairs around the house, I’m incompetent. When it comes to figuring out why my computer does some of the mischievous things it does, I’m incompetent. However, when, at the very same time that China, North Korea and Iran, are all building up their armies and increasing the stockpile of nuclear bombs in the hands of madmen, Obama is gutting the U.S. military and promising to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 80%, that can’t be explained away as mere incompetence. Let’s face it, if a foreign power had the ability to lower our defense capability that easily, they’d leave us no option but to declare war on them.

For all the nonsense about respecting the Office of the President, when the commander-in-chief insists on surrounding himself with the likes of Eric Holder, Van Jones, Kathleen Sibelius, Valerie Jarrett and Jacob Lew, he deserves about as much respect as George Soros or any of those Occupy Wall Street creeps defecating on the sidewalk.

Last year, Obama came up with a budget that was so odious that even his cronies in the Senate voted it down unanimously. Not one to take “No” for an answer, he came back this year with a budget that raised taxes on people in America who make over a million dollars a year, while not asking a plugged nickel from the 47% who don’t pay a dime in income taxes.

He also proposed raising capital gains taxes by 30% and taxing stock dividends at the same rate as regular income. It’s a one-two punch that would destroy the Stock Market. Even Obama’s good friend Warren Buffet wouldn’t invest under those conditions.

Click to continue reading “A FEW MORE REASONS TO SEND OBAMA PACKING”
Go straight to Post

Dysfunctional Government or Corrupt Media?

by Roger Aronoff on Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012

This is article 249 of 393 in the topic economy

Did the Republicans suffer a disastrous and humiliating defeat when they “caved in” and agreed on December 22 to accept the two-month extension of the payroll tax holiday that had been passed in the Senate with strong bi-partisan support? The Democrats and their mainstream media allies were high-fiving and gloating about an early Christmas. Chris Matthews called it a “rub it in their face moment.” In this instance, even many in the conservative media were heaping criticism on the way the Republicans, particularly the House GOP, handled this matter.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page came down hard: “The GOP leaders have somehow managed the remarkable feat of being blamed for opposing a one-year extension of a tax holiday that they are surely going to pass. This is no easy double play…Republicans have also achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter, although he’s spent most of his Presidency promoting tax increases and he would hit the economy with one of the largest tax increases ever in 2013. This should be impossible.”

There is no question about it. In terms of coordination between the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, this was a blunder, which allowed President Obama to seize the stage as if he and the Democrats were the party advocating tax cuts for the middle class, while the Republicans were standing against such cuts, and ergo, against middle class working people.

The columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, “making economic sense is not the point. The tax-holiday extension—presumably to be negotiated next year into a 12-month extension—is the perfect campaign ploy: an election-year bribe that has the additional virtue of seizing the tax issue for the Democrats.” He added that “The House Republicans’ initial rejection of this two-month extension was therefore correct on principle and on policy. But this was absolutely the wrong place, the wrong time, to plant the flag. Once Senate Republicans overwhelmingly backed the temporary extension, that part of the fight was lost. Opposing it became kamikaze politics.”

That may be true, but in terms of substance, and even long-term perception, was it really such a victory for Obama and the Democrats? Was it really such a defeat for Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and the House Republicans? If the media get their way, then the answer will be yes. But it’s worth taking a look a little deeper to see what happened during the process, and the nature of the Democrats’ victory.

One person who caved, though the media hardly took note, was President Obama, who had insisted on December 7 that “Any effort to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut, I will reject. So everybody can be on notice.” He was referring to a decision on the proposed $7 billion, 2,100 mile Keystone oil pipeline from Canada down to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries that he had attempted to postpone until after the upcoming November election so as not to offend either of two constituencies with a direct interest in his decision—Big Labor and radical environmentalists. He was hoping to avoid angering either group before the November election, but now, according to the agreement, he has to make a decision within two months, well before the election.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin