|
Before Newsweek created a controversy with its laughably absurd cover story that the Bible supports homosexual marriage, lame duck President George W. Bush declared in an interview with Cynthia McFadden of ABC News that he doesn't believe the Bible to be the literal word of God. So Adam and Eve could just as easily be Adam and Steve? We needed a follow-up from McFadden. Bush spoke with conviction during the interview about how Jesus Christ has changed his life while McFadden played "gotcha" journalism on the subject of evolution, which has nothing to do with his record as president. What should be addressed is one of his precious few "legacies"-that of promoting the acceptance of homosexuality-which some conservatives do not want to admit or address. It is a record that Barack Obama will build and expand upon. Bush would prefer to call it "compassionate conservatism," but there is nothing compassionate about wasting taxpayer dollars promoting a "lifestyle" that spreads disease and death. Consider the "International Medal of Peace" that Bush was given on December 1, World AIDS Day, by Pastor Rick Warren. One of the many problems with such an award, which sounds humanitarian, is that while it was designed to honor Bush for spending billions of our tax dollars to fight AIDS, it diverts attention from what has become an extremely corrupt, pork-laden and wasteful program. By any rational analysis, it is not "compassionate" to misspend taxpayer dollars that the taxpayers can't afford to spend or waste. The United Nations still doesn't even know how many people have AIDS in Africa, which is where Bush has spent most of our tax dollars. In one of the latest examples of this scandal, Senator Tom Coburn has highlighted how 116 U.S. federal employees joined 22,000 people attending this year's International AIDS Conference in Mexico City. According to Coburn, the event was supposed to feature a "Sex Workers Mini Film Festival" and a session led by a pro-prostitution group that bragged of bringing in "lots of tourist dollars" for Thailand. Another workshop was titled, "Good Catholics Use Condoms." The only story I could find about this mess was written by Amanda Carpenter of the conservative Townhall.com website. Even if the AIDS money were being spent legitimately, it would still be objectionable. The FAIR Foundation exists because of the inequities in disease research spending by the federal government and notes that AIDS gets far more money than 16 diseases that kill a million more Americans than AIDS annually. More than $200 billion in federal money has been spent on AIDS here and abroad since the virus was discovered. No cure or vaccine has been found, but the money keeps flowing because a moneyed special interest group, based in Hollywood, the media, and the homosexual community, demands it. Washington Post property Newsweek, which acts like an official organ of the homosexual rights movement, a year ago ran an interview with Michael Guest, one of several open homosexuals appointed by Bush to various posts. Guest was given the position of U.S. Ambassador to Romania. During Guest's swearing-in ceremony, it was reported that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made a point to recognize Guest's "partner." In 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in another openly homosexual Bush appointee, Mark Dybul, to be the global AIDS coordinator, and acknowledged his "partner." First Lady Laura Bush looked on with approval. Guest later quit, saying that the State Department was not sufficiently pro-homosexual, and is now an adviser to the Council for Global Equality, which is pressuring the Bush Administration to endorse a pro-gay rights statement being considered this week by the United Nations General Assembly. The group is demanding that Secretary of State Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad, and Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Brian Hook approve the resolution. Don't expect to see any critical coverage of this effort by the national media. Even the "conservative" Fox News was a sponsor of this year's National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA). Other sponsors were CBS, CNN, ESPN, Gannett, Hearst Newspapers, NBC Universal, the McClatchy Company, the Washington Post, and Bloomberg. And you thought that Fox News and NBC were rivals? Not on the matter of cozying up to the gays. They're strange bedfellows on the matter of gay rights. This crowd considers criticism of homosexuality a hate crime. Indeed, the FoxNews.com website has run a bizarre story on how "journalists and activist groups" are blasting the Vatican for its "grotesque" opposition to the pro-gay rights statement being considered by the U.N. Fox News ran photos of the anti-Vatican protests, highlighting a lesbian wearing a noose to signify her treatment by Christians. Americans who support traditional marriage are not threatening anyone. They are just trying to preserve traditional values. As we saw recently with the homosexual rampage in California, following approval of the pro-traditional marriage Proposition 8, Christians should be fearful. A 69-year-old woman carrying a Styrofoam cross had it ripped out of her hands and stomped on by "gay" activists. White powder, designed to make people think it contains the deadly anthrax bacteria, has been sent to Mormon temples and offices to protest the fact that members of the church supported Proposition 8. The real threat comes from the militant homosexuals, their media allies, and President-elect Barack Obama, a double-talker on the subject who claims he opposes gay marriage but opposed Proposition 8. In regard to Newsweek's ridiculous cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," a leading Bible authority, Professor Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, has written at length about how Newsweek author Lisa Miller distorted the bible and deceived her readers. It is interesting to note that, at about the same time this sorry excuse for a cover story was being distributed, Newsweek announced more job cuts. It cut more than one hundred jobs in the Spring. In a major article posted one day before the national election, Gagnon went beyond the issue of media bias to write ominously about "Obama's Coming War on Historic Christianity over Homosexual Practice and Abortion." He said the record indicates that, in the area of free speech rights, Obama and/or his appointees to federal agencies will seek to enact "severe restrictions" against alleged "homophobic" utterances. Those who violate these new rules and regulations will "incur financial penalties and loss of license," he warned. Such a scheme could be the forerunner to the re-imposition of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on broadcasters. But wait. Aren't we being told by liberal and conservative columnists and commentators that Obama is coming across as "moderate?" As we have argued in the past, especially in regard to the handling of the financial crisis, Obama looks like a "moderate" only because Bush has moved so far to the left. That's also true in regard to promotion of homosexuality. Bush did not support homosexual marriage, but he promoted the homosexual agenda in many other ways, earning sympathetic press releases from the "gay" Log Cabin Republicans. Their heroes are Republicans such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who believes Proposition 8, the pro-traditional marriage amendment which the majority of people in the state voted for on November 4, is unconstitutional. Under pressure, alleged Republican homosexual Senator Larry Craig will be gone when the new Senate convenes next year, but the problem will remain. Alan Stang's incendiary book, Not Holier Than Thou, will be an eye-opening experience for those unfamiliar with the significant number of homosexuals in official Republican ranks. He names names. For those who say none of this is relevant and that it doesn't impact public policy, Stang points to the ongoing scandal on the other side of the aisle, involving Democratic Party Rep. Barney Frank. You may recall that he hired a "hot bottom" out of the Washington (Gay) Blade and then let him use his apartment as the base of a homosexual prostitution ring. Frank also tried to fix his parking tickets. Frank was reprimanded for this conduct by the House of Representatives, but the Democrats have lower standards than Republicans and did not expel or force him out of Congress. Frank found a new "partner" or "lover," Herb Moses, who became assistant director for product initiatives at Fannie Mae while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie. In this case, Bill Sammon of Fox News did the necessary digging, noting the obvious conflict of interest. He reported, "Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively." Doesn't it seem newsworthy that a Congressman who received campaign donations from Fannie was romantically involved with a Fannie executive? But in the famous October 2 interview with Frank over his role in the mortgage crisis, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News never once brought up the subject. It's probably because Frank would have brought up O'Reilly's own sex scandal. The Fox News personality settled with a former employee who charged him with sexual harassment. To take the story one step further, it turns out the Freddie Mac Foundation has given more than $125,000 to gay-activist groups since 2005, while the Fannie Mae Foundation has donated about $80,000 to such groups over the last decade. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth has documented how the media have a deliberate policy of not reporting anything that puts homosexuals in a bad light. The group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays says this is due to the efforts of NLGJA, which "boasts over 1,300 journalists embedded in the nation's leading newspapers, television and radio stations, and new media" and which has announced that it is monitoring the "new generation of journalists" to make sure they toe the line. These are the people who give Bush "credit" for wasting money on AIDS and will portray Obama's expanded pro-homosexual and anti-Christian agenda as one of tolerance and diversity. It's no wonder "mainstream" media outlets like Newsweek are losing readers and jobs. They deserve to go economically bankrupt because they have demonstrated they are morally bankrupt. Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Trackback(0)
Comments (2)
![]() written by TJ Parker, December 16, 2008
Two points regarding these arguments in support of "traditional" marriage by way of preventing marriage for gay couples.
First, regarding gay people. We do have relationships, families, children, and will continue to do so, with our without civil marriage. I want you to tell me why my family and my children should be disadvantaged by the state relative to your family and your children. We pay our taxes, pay our mortgage, live our lives as you do. I want to know why you think that you are entitled to more from the state than we are. I want you to tell my son why he should receive less than your children. Second, there are certainly examples of states and countries that permit same-sex marriage. I would like you to show me, concretely, how civil marriage between members of the same sex has eroded traditional marriage in those states and those countries. I would like you to show me, concretely, how heterosexual marriage was diminished by extending marriage to gay couples in California, and how subsequently it was strengthened by the pa*sage of Proposition 8. I am completely convinced that the "protect traditional marriage" line is just an argument you make to make yourselves feel good about discriminating against others. Please prove me wrong by showing me, concretely and in detail, how I am wrong. Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Sunday, 14 December 2008 13:52 |
1) That sexual orientation is equivalent to sexual behavior (evident in his commentary on a 'lifestyle that spreads disease and death'). This is ridiculous; I may as well present the argument that romantic love is equivalent to sex. Do all married couples have sex? No. Do all couples who have sex end up marrying? No. Similarly, not everyone with a homosexual orientation engages in homosexual sex, and not everyone who engages in homosexual sex is gay. This is a critical distinction to understand before making any broad, sweeping generalizations, because the implication seems to be that same-sex marriage will somehow increase promiscuity and sex with multiple partners. Ridiculous. This leads me to my next point:
2) Of course, the author fails to mention that AIDS is actually most common among *promiscuous* men and prostitutes...I would think that promoting a monogamous institution would actually cut AIDS infection rates, would it not?
3) The author makes the a*sumption that the actions of a radical few represent the mentality of many. For starters, the author failed to mention that the old lady in question actually forced her way through a crowd, trampling on a disabled person by some eyewitness accounts, and was generally there not to protest, but to gain attention from the same media crew that she recognized from before. Or even sillier, the tone implies that white powder is being mailed every week to churches. So why not account for the beatings and slurs that have been directed against young LGBT men and women, or the kicks and punches thrown by an official Prop 8 organizer, or the murder of a young homosexual man in the wake of Prop 8's pa*sing? But of course, all Prop 8 opponents are violent mob activists, while all Prop 8 supporters are peaceful saints, right?
It's true that Americans who support "traditional" marriage are not threatening anyone, except when they decide to step outside the realm of their marriage in order to attack someone else's. So have your traditional marriage, and let those who also want affirmations of love and legal benefits the right to marry. This does not even take into account the ridiculous notion of "tradition" here; in the United States, a country with less than 250 years of history, marriage has already been expanded to include spousal equality (your wife isn't your property anymore), abolish polygamy (though WHY this should be so is another argument entirely), and include interracial marriage (which 72% of Americans opposed in 1968, but virtually everyone accepts now). Any arguments for tradition are moot, considering the changing dynamic of society and societal institutions, including marriage.