From the May 30 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
Loading the player reg...
In a Washington Times op-ed, Tony Perkins distorted a quote by Elena Kagan to falsely suggest that Kagan defied a federal law regarding campus access for military recruiters. In fact, Kagan did not say, as Perkins claimed, that "she hoped 'that the Department [of Defense] would choose not to enforce' " the law.
From a May 25 column by Cliff Kincaid of the group Accuracy in Media:
Corporal Klinger and the Barney Frank Brigade
The MASH television spectacle of Corporal Klinger wearing women's dresses to get out of the military may now give way to the Pentagon actually permitting transgendered male soldiers to openly wear women's military uniforms. This is what repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," could mean.
While some might scoff at the idea of transgendered soldiers ever serving in the Armed Forces, the transgendered are an essential component of the so-called LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) community pushing repeal of the military's homosexual exclusion policy.
Don't forget that the Obama Administration has already claimed credit for the first openly transgendered appointee to the federal bureaucracy -- a man/woman at the Commerce Department named Mitchell/Amanda Simpson.
While it is tempting to think that the only damage that would be done would be the turning of our once-feared military into a global laughingstock, there are important national security and health implications to the homosexualization of the Armed Forces.
As a result of the repeal of DADT, thousands of straight and healthy soldiers will probably leave in disgust and dismay, while tens of thousands more will choose never to sign up. Our military will end up in shambles, the war against Islamic fascism would be jeopardized, and a draft would be required to fill the ranks with soldiers reporting to the male homosexuals already there and in command positions. They will demand sexual favors to rise in the ranks, creating even more problems down the road. It is a recipe for national suicide.
But don't think this would only affect the Armed Forces, as important as they are. Lifting the ban on gay blood potentially affects millions of people who may have to access the nation's blood supply because of accidents or illnesses that they suffer. Those absolutely dependent on blood transfusions to survive, the hemophiliacs, would face immediate risk of death.
Memorial Day is always a sad occasion, as we remember what our veterans have accomplished, in order to keep us free. It would undermine their sacrifices and dishonor their memories if the homosexual lobby succeeds in its battle this week, with the help of the media, in transforming the Armed Forces into a playground for their perverted sexual practices and incubator for their deadly and dangerous diseases.
From the May 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
We're still not entirely sure what CNN is up to following anti-gay bigot Ryan Sorba around, but the network has just released the following trailer for its newest "...In America" special. Following in the footsteps of Black in America and Latino in America, CNN's latest offering is titled Gary and Tony Have a Baby:
Much has been said of the right-wing media's deeply flawed coverage of efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) -- but who does the traditional media turn to in its reporting on the subject? According to a study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), it's not the LGBT community.
In a guest-post on Pam's House Blend blog, FAIR's Julie Hollar writes (emphasis added):
After months of pressure from activists to make good on his campaign promise, Barack Obama called for a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in his January 27 State of the Union address. Less than a week later, Adm. Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee hearing on February 2 that repealing the policy that prevents gay men and lesbians from serving openly was "the right thing to do."
As the story made the rounds on television, the most striking thing about the conversation was who wasn't in it: the people at the center of the debate.
Yet in the four weeks following Obama's call (1/28/10-2/24/10), only three of 25 sources commenting on DADT on ABC, CBS and NBC-one on each network-were identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or representing an LGBT organization.
It should come as no surprise, then, that instead of stories about the discriminatory nature of DADT, viewers largely heard a debate about whether the "timing is wrong" or the repeal would undermine "military cohesion." And even though the repeal is remarkably non-controversial at this point, with recent polls showing as much as 75 percent of the public in favor (ABC/ Washington Post, 2/4-8/10), many in the corporate media did their best to turn it into a political football.
So, while conservative media figures fill airtime pushing discredited myths and falsehoods designed to stop a repeal of DADT, the traditional media nearly ignores the very people impacted by the policy.
Does that make sense or what? Sigh.
Don't forget, following President Obama's State of the Union address, Media Matters' noted that LGBT voices were largely absent from the post-speech analysis. This despite Obama's call for a repeal of DADT which was reported on in advance of the actual address giving outlets plenty of time to book LGBT guests to discuss the subject.
I honestly thought we were done with this garbage. And yet, Jim Hoft returns today to the same lies he was so fond of trumpeting a few months back about about Education Department official Kevin Jennings and the organization he formerly ran, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), along with a brand-new falsehood.
Under the headline, "Figures. Highland Park School Official Won't Send Students to Arizona But She'll Send Them to Secret GLSEN Gay Sex Classes," Hoft writes:
Suzan Hebson, assistant superintendent of Highland Park, Ill., School District 113, won't allow teen girls to travel to Arizona but she'll send them to secret GLSEN gay sex classes and make them sign a statement promising not to tell others. The teen sex classes promoted by Hebson are part of Obama's Safe Schools Czar's teen sex indoctrination.
I'm sure you will be shocked to learn that the Highland Park school in question, Deerfield High School does not send its students to "secret GLSEN gay sex classes." As the articles Hoft links to point out, the school features a number of panels for freshman students intended to help them adjust to high school; the classes are mandatory, but parents can keep their kids out of any specific panel they wish.
In one of those panel sessions, according to a March 8, 2007, Chicago Tribune report, "students who belong to a club called the Straight and Gay Alliance talk about personal experiences, such as what it feels like to be bullied or to be a straight friend of a gay classmate." The Tribune goes on to report:
"The whole point of the presentation is to help students understand how they--maybe even flippantly, intending to communicate with others--can be perceived or misperceived by others," Hebson said.
Erin Kaplan, 17, a senior, who describes himself as the only transgender student at Deerfield, said he believes that the climate at school has improved since the panel discussions began five years ago. He said the student alliance began the practice "after a really big wave of homophobic comments, targets for being gay."
Kaplan, a panelist for the last three years, tells students that he was born a boy--his parents gave him the name "Evan"--but that he has always felt like he should have been a girl. He wears feminine clothing at times but has a man's narrow hips and husky voice.
The panel this year consists of seven students. Four students identify themselves as gay, bisexual or transgender, and three are heterosexual, he said.
"What is important is that we learn to respect each other as peers," Kaplan said. "That's really the heart of what we talk about."
Question: What type of human being does one have to be to turn something like this into a rant against "teen sex indoctrination"?
In a May 12 post, right-wing blog RedState.com smeared Kevin Jennings as a "pedophile", stating:
Theory 1. Obama isn't comfortable with gays.
I don't know. He has appointed a pedophile as Safe Schools Czar so it's hard to credit that he's uncomfortable around a run of the mill lesbian. On the other hand he has reneged on his pledge to abolish DADT in the military and the African American community, one of his core constituencies, is arguably one of the least gay-friendly demographics in the country. Maybe he's only comfortable with closeted gays. None of this explains why he'd nominate someone who is gay (and my working premise here, as with virtually any dealing with the White House, is that the White House is lying), deny she's gay, and then have a former sweetheart crash a White House party.
RedState linked to a Jim Hoft post on BigGovernment.com, the first of his many pointless "Fistgate" posts, which was quickly discredited by Media Matters last December. Even before that, Media Matters had exclusively debunked media conservatives' claims about the controversy these smears stemmed from.
Why a RedState blogger would, half a year after the smear has been debunked, casually smear Jennings as a pedophile is beyond me. RedState should correct this outrageous and completely false attack.
Led by Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard is waging an interesting little campaign aimed at convincing the public that the military has nothing to do with the military's ban on openly-gay service members. Here's Kristol on May 10:
[I]t is not the military's policy. It is the policy of the U.S. Government, based on legislation passed in 1993 by (a Democratic) Congress, signed into law and implemented by the Clinton administration, legislation and implementation that are currently continued by a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress. It is intellectually wrong and morally cowardly to call this the "military's policy."
Weekly Standard writer John McCormack endorsed that argument in his own May 11 post. And Kristol was back at it today, criticizing Elena Kagan for "blaming of the military for a congressional/presidential policy choice."
The interesting thing about Kristol & Co. insisting that the military itself has nothing to do with the military's anti-gay policies is that they've been insisting for years that civilian policymakers should defer to the military when it comes to adjusting those policies.
Here's Kristol in February:
[T]he repeal is something that Obama campaigned on. He believes in it. But with all due respect to his sincerely held if abstractly formed views on this subject, it would be reckless to require the military to carry out a major sociological change, one contrary to the preferences of a large majority of its members, as it fights two wars.
John McCain's response to Obama's statement was that of a grown-up: "This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy."
John McCormack, also in February:
A couple of interesting nuggets on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in that Quinnipiac poll noted earlier: Although 57% of registered voters say they favor repealing the law banning gays openly serving in the military, voters are evenly split when asked, "Do you think heterosexual military personnel should be required to share quarters with gay personnel or not?"
Perhaps more important is the poll's finding that "military households" are evenly split on the question of repealing DADT: 48% oppose repeal, 47% favor repeal. Presumably households include the responses of members of the military as well as their spouses. It would be interesting to poll just active members of the military.
There have been many reports about the momentum behind DADT repeal, but there's no indication there are 60 votes in the Senate or 218 votes in the House to repeal the law. And the top Marine's stance against repeal should carry a lot of weight with those on the fence.
And another Weekly Standard writer, James Bowman, under the header "Don't Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'":
The left has nothing better to offer than riding roughshod over the opinions of the majority of servicemen--58 percent in the latest Military Times poll--and repealing the law.
Well, you get the point. According to Kristol and his Weekly Standard pals, we must all defer to (what they portray as) the military's preference when it comes to allowing gays to serve -- but, at the same time, we mustn't attribute that policy to the military.
And while they're at it, Kristol et al insist on accusing Kagan of "discriminating against the military." What they mean by that is that Kagan briefly ended the military's exemption from Harvard's anti-discrimination policy. It's an impressively audacious bit of spin to twist holding the military to the same policy as all other employers into discriminating against the military. Then again, Kristol is an impressively dishonest fellow.
We made note earlier this month of Fox News host Mike Huckabee's interview with College of New Jersey newsmagazine The Perspective in which the former Arkansas Governor drew "parallels between homosexuality" and drug use, incest, and polygamy while also defending his home state's ban on same-sex couples becoming adoptive or foster parents saying, "we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults...children are not puppies."
Now it seems Huckabee may be singing a (slightly) different tune on same-sex couples adopting. As Towleroad notes, Huckabee sat down for an interview with Rosie O'Donnell on the comedian's Sirius radio program:
Says Huckabee: "Well, you know Rosie, again, I think people have to make their own decision about what a family ought to look like and I'm not going to judge you or judge anybody else because I know there are so many loving people who are in same-sex relationships and they have adopted children and they love those kids. I'm not going to judge them. I'm simply not going there."
O'Donnell goes on to say: I haven't mentioned marriage once Mike. I'm mentioning that there are half a million kids in foster care in America. And 99% of them were raised by heterosexual parents. And if there are homosexual people that want to take in and love these discarded children that the state is not raising and taking care of, to have public officials deem homosexuals unworthy of parenting is disastrous for the nation, for equality, and for humanity, and Mike, for Christianity."
By the way, last week a circuit court judge struck down Arkansas' Act 1 which, passed in 2008, banned same-sex couples and single people from adopting in the state.
Think Progress notes that in discussing the story of six gay and lesbian service members who "handcuffed themselves to the White House fence" in protest of the President's slow movement on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), Fox & Friends co-host had this to say (emphasis added):
I want to get your take on something that happened at the White House earlier this week, because, of course the message from the Obama administration is of course they will be the most transparent White House ever and there was this incident where some members of the military, at least dressed up like that, were handcuffing themselves in an area where typically protests happen and the police chased reporters away and basically said they could not cover the event that was happening.
It's just another example of Fox News' love/hate relationship with the LGBT community. Off-air the network offers workplace protections and health care benefits to LGBT employees and their spouses while on-air its hosts and contributors are dismissive and at times downright homophobic towards the community.
In fairness though, we shouldn't really hold Carlson accountable for such a statement. After all, she's not a real journalists, she's just "dressed up like" one.
From the April 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the April 23 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
On Tuesday, Glenn Beck hosted Robert George on his Fox News program offering the Princeton University professor an opportunity to articulate the pillars of the anti-LGBT Manhattan Declaration which George co-authored:
The New York Times described the Manhattan Declaration thusly back in November:
Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.
The document was written by Mr. Colson; Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, who is Catholic; and the Rev. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, an evangelical interdenominational school on the campus of Samford University, in Birmingham, Ala.
They convened a meeting of Christian leaders in Manhattan in September to present the document and gather suggestions. The 4,700-word document is called the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience." The New York Times obtained an advance copy.
The document says, "We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent."
The Manhattan Declaration folks appear to have a great deal in common with Beck -- not the least of which is an affinity for citing Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to legitimize their right-wing points of view.
The very next day, viewers of Beck's Fox News show were likely surprised when the host seemed to defend several gay and lesbian service members who hand-cuffed themselves to the White House fence in Lafayette Square Park to protest President Obama's slow movement on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
Don't jump to any conclusions. Beck hasn't turned over a new leaf in his treatment of the LGBT community. He's just as homophobic as ever.
In fact, Beck only sprang to the defense of these brave men and women because he saw an opening to attack the President and his ominous "government" while simultaneously painting a menacing picture for his robotic followers -- Obama will come after you too!
It should be noted that the White House didn't keep reporters from covering the truly newsworthy protest -- the blame reportedly rests with the U.S. Park Police. Politico's Ben Smith reports:
The U.S. Park Police is taking responsibility for chasing reporters away from the White House as six uniformed members of the armed services were arrested after handcuffing themselves to the White House gate to protest "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" yesterday.
"That was strictly the U.S. Park Police that screwed up - that has nothing to do with the Secret Service of the White House or the Administration," said Park Police spokesman Sergeant David Schlosser of the incident, which drew complaints from reporters and online speculation about darker motives.
The whole episode is just further proof of Fox News' love/hate relationship with its gay "friends" which I wrote about in greater detail last week.
Earlier this month, I noted the massive ideological disparity in WashingtonPost.com online Q&As over the previous three months -- the Post hosted nine conservatives and only two liberals during that time.
On Friday, the Post added another conservative to the list -- Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg, who discussed his opposition to President Obama's extension of hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners. The Post also hosted a Q&A with a Human Rights Campaign staffer who supported the decision, an all-too-rare attempt at balance from the Post.
But the Post's decision to host Sprigg is alarming nonetheless. See, Peter Sprigg says "gay behavior" should be outlawed. And Sprigg has said "I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society."
It seems safe to assume the Washington Post would not provide a forum to someone who says the practice of Judaism should be outlawed, or that he would prefer to "export blacks from the United States." So why does the Post host anti-gay bigot Peter Sprigg?