Posted on 09/15/2013 10:22:23 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
“Fox News joins the Pro-Homosexual Media Bandwagon” – so says Peter LaBarbera in a 40,000-word expose that flaunts over 220 footnotes. (Read the full report here: Unfair, Unbalanced and Afraid).
While Sean Hannity chooses silence and John Stossel passive acceptance, rising star Megyn Kelly plays trans-gender advocate for Chaz Bono, then drops the “hate card” on the psychiatrist who disagrees.
Bernie Goldberg pushes “Jesus is just alright with” gay, then implies that the Biblical heroes David and Jonathan were homosexual as were Ruth and Naomi. Sean Hannity? – Still mum.
Bill O’Reilly bashes an ex-gay; Elizabeth Hasselbeck calls pope’s opposition to “gay marriage” – “inhumane.” Stossel? – Still indifferent.
Shep Smith graces the annual report of “Out” magazine’s 50 Most Powerful Homosexuals (he does have dreamy eyes), Fox News Channel fronts tens of thousands of dollars for a Gay and Lesbian Journalists group, and Chris Wallace probes Ron Paul’s homophobia. Stossel? He’s down with gay and thinks polygamy is just groovy.
Five out of five of “The Five” agree with the “evolved” Obama on same-sex marriage; Fox hires “out” lesbian, liberal Sally Kohn – and I think Hannity just blinked.
Do your eyes deceive you? This must be about MSNBC; Fox News is the conservative network, right?
The part that really kicked me in the pants was the Pew Research Study that confirmed that Fox News had a pro “gay marriage” bias and that even liberal NPR was more “Fair and Balanced” on the issue than was Fox.
“Conservatives of all stripes had high hopes for Fox News to offset the overwhelming liberal bias of the dominant “mainstream” media networks,” writes LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH; www.aftah.org), a Chicago-based organization dedicated to exposing and opposing the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) activist movement.
If LaBarbera is anything, he is fair as he is thorough! His report asks some critical questions:
– Is Sean Hannity afraid of the “gay issue”?
– Is Shepard Smith the next Anderson Cooper?
– Is Megyn Kelly the new hero to the gay lobby?
– Will Glenn Beck join the new gay crusade?
– Where is John Stossel, the champion of liberty, on the biggest threat to religious liberty in American history?
– Why is Fox News subsidizing a “gay” journalists association?
– Why does Fox humanize one side of the debate while marginalizing and demonizing the other?
– Why is Fox so averse to having a “fair and balanced” debate, with a real “pro-family” conservative as a counterpoint?
“But Fox, mimicking current trends in the Republican Party with which it is often identified,” LaBarbera continues, “– has increasingly adopted a libertarian brand of ‘conservatism’ that eschews or downplays social issues, especially homosexuality, as too ‘divisive.’ Thus Fox News’ coverage – including conservative advocacy programs like the ‘Sean Hannity Show’– has in recent years tended to downplay homosexual-related issues,” added LaBarbera. “(This is at odds with Ronald Reagan, who advocated social conservatism as one of the three legs of the conservative stool – the others being fiscal responsibility and a strong defense and foreign policy.)”
When a “news” organization decides what stories they will share and which to shelve, they are committing censorship by omission. In contrast to MSNBC’S more overt “in the bag” gayhem, the majority of Fox hosts just pretend the issue doesn’t exist.
Even in the broil of the same-sex “marriage” debate, Hannity rarely raised the issue and when it did come up, he looked like he was auditioning for the role of Chief Inspector Dreyfus in a Pink Panther remake: *Eye-twitch – “Let not your hearts be troubled,” followed by a butt shift and an uncomfortable segue to safer subjects, like treason or Benghazi, then throw the Nerf football to Camera #2. “It’s a wrap!”
“As if becoming neutral (or shallow) on crucial Culture War issues wasn’t disappointing enough,” writes LaBarbera, “some leading Fox News’ hosts, such as Bill O’Reilly, Shepard Smith and Megyn Kelly, have emerged as on-air, pro-LGBT advocates – seemingly defying Fox’s core audience demographic of staunch Republican conservatives.”
Not only does Fox shy from the controversy, when the issue does come up, they stack the deck with a bevy of gay-pologists: Greg Gutfeld, Sally Kohn, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Liz Wiehl, for a time Margaret Hoover and Wayne Besen. All of these are pro gay with some even going as far as to castigate those with whom they disagree as hate-filled bigots.
When was the last time that you saw Peter LaBarbera or Matt Barber as a guest on the “fair and balanced” network? Even Tony Perkins is rarely invited since the whole flap with Megyn Kelly that produced the infamous remark from Ron Burgundy (Bill O’Reilly) about “bible thumpers.”
In fairness, the special report from America’s Survival does chronicle when Fox has been fair on the issue and gives credit to personalities like Gretchen Carlson, Todd Starnes and Mike Huckabee, who stand for traditional values, but how often are these exceptions ever on the air? How often are they on the air and speaking about this subject?
It seems that the Fox hierarchy has stowed the defenders of sexual purity in the closet while tossing the keys to sexual anarchy’s vanguard.
When was the last time that Fox News had an ex-gay on? Actually that may have been back in 2002 when Bill O’Reilly attacked Stephen Bennet for challenging his understanding of the Catholic position on homosexuality. Bennett, who overcame his “gay” lifestyle of 11 years (including over 100 homosexual partners), embraced Christianity, married his girlfriend Irene and became the father of two children, was called an “idiot” by O’Reilly on the radio show lead-up to the television interview (where O’Reilly toned it down to “religious fanatic”).
I’m pretty confident that anyone who actually believes that the Bible is God’s word would be considered a “religious fanatic,” coming from a guy who will shortly set us all straight about the real reason that Jesus was killed – “taxes!”
From Megyn Kelly’s rabid defense of all things lavender to Shep Smith’s comment on “Chick-fil-a” day being a “national day of intolerance”, Fox News seems to have taxied out on the good ship lollipop.
LOL!
SPARKLY!!!
There most assuredly will be a roll back of the homosexual movement. Already in many parts of Europe homosexuals are afraid to display themselves as homosexuals in public. The Muslim immigrants who have become so prevalent there tend to take a dim view of such theatrics. Now that Muslims are established there, it won't be long until they have a plurality. The future belongs exclusively to those who have children and the Muslims do that particularly well. Given enough time the demographics will also change here in a similar way but perhaps with a different form of religious zealotry.
Get used to the integration of the poofter demographic into our daily affairs and try to make the cognitive leap to where we can communicate with them to the degree that we can influence them away from the more egregious expressions of their sexual orientation-i.e. pederasty, sado-masochism and blatant recruitment.
They cannot abandon their core ideals and it is folly to think that there is anything we could compromise enough to get them to do so.
This is a tough one to swallow, to be sure, but that’s the way the cookie is crumbling in a technological society with more freedom than humans have ever experienced on the planet before.
The sad pun in your mixed metaphor aside, authentic freedom is not at issue here for them. The homosexual movement is attacking real religious freedom by attempting to destroy the family.
Pray that it’s a phase, a reaction to the heavy handed suppression of homosexuality historically, not to mention a the undeniable quantity of “vigiliante” gay bashing that was carried out in the US, most likely not by men who voted Democrat, and that, with integration and a lessening of threat to gays, it will subside from being a live issue.
This isn't a backlash, it's a highly coordinated subversive movement that has long been aligned with the Communist Party and the Democrat Party.
There is a surprisingly large number of gay conservatives out there. Why not at least try to increase their numbers via diplomatic means?
Even the Democrats know that attempting to win the votes of active homosexuals is a fool's errand for Republicans. All that will be gained by compromising the conservative position is the loss of the Republican base. The homosexuals are no more likely to vote against the homosexual party as black people are likely to vote against a black president.
Why did conservatives get into bed with Rupert Murdoch in the first place? He is a longtime purveyor of tabloid trash. He never had any morals. Why should anyone be surprised that the Glee network is totally gay?
>>Lookit, chil’ren, there isn’t going to be a rollback on gay rights, period.
>There most assuredly will be a roll back of the homosexual movement. Already in many parts of Europe homosexuals are afraid to display themselves as homosexuals in public. The Muslim immigrants who have become so prevalent there tend to take a dim view of such theatrics. Now that Muslims are established there, it won’t be long until they have a plurality. The future belongs exclusively to those who have children and the Muslims do that particularly well. Given enough time the demographics will also change here in a similar way but perhaps with a different form of religious zealotry.
I don’t see your observation of a roll back due to Muslim intervention or any other “zealotry”. What you describe is a marginal phenomenon except perhaps lately in Russia. The so called “gay liberation” movement is emphatically NOT losing momentum in North America or Europe but continue to make inroads into mass media and education. As an FR reader you should know this from the many articles and threads on the subject, this one being not exceptional.
>>Get used to the integration of the poofter demographic into our daily affairs and try to make the cognitive leap to where we can communicate with them to the degree that we can influence them away from the more egregious expressions of their sexual orientation-i.e. pederasty, sado-masochism and blatant recruitment.
>They cannot abandon their core ideals and it is folly to think that there is anything we could compromise enough to get them to do so.
No one has to compromise anything. Homosexuality is not a core ideal, it is an engineered ideal created by sexual abuse and other childhood psychological cause factors, including very early ones. We can certainly start by understanding what those causes are and create a society with better parenting skills.
>>This is a tough one to swallow, to be sure, but that’s the way the cookie is crumbling in a technological society with more freedom than humans have ever experienced on the planet before.
>The sad pun in your mixed metaphor aside, authentic freedom is not at issue here for them. The homosexual movement is attacking real religious freedom by attempting to destroy the family.
The “sad pun” was unintended. I don’t spend a lot of time trying to make my posts into literary masterpieces. Clear your head and understand that modern technological society with massive lateral communication is the freest humans have ever been in all history, period. This freedom is what societies are coping with in an attempt to reset positive social behavior against a background of varying social conservatisms by definition. That what “society” is, a means of conserving positive normative behavior patterns, which have evolved through intense periods of zealotry and oppression. The root cause of Muslim intraction is precisely the effect of modernization upon a feudal tribalist cultural ethos.
>>Pray that it’s a phase, a reaction to the heavy handed suppression of homosexuality historically, not to mention a the undeniable quantity of “vigiliante” gay bashing that was carried out in the US, most likely not by men who voted Democrat, and that, with integration and a lessening of threat to gays, it will subside from being a live issue.
>>This isn’t a backlash, it’s a highly coordinated subversive movement that has long been aligned with the Communist Party and the Democrat Party.
Yes, but not to the degree you assume. And you’ll have to convince me that these commies are not the ones responsible for the sexual conservatism found presently in Russia, China and North Korea. The corrupting of ethics and morals in the West, which you correctly observe, is not the sole domain of Marxist influence. You will find it in Las Vegas, Wall St., New Orleans, Spring Break anywhere, porn markets anywhere with much of it an outgrowth of advertising. In case you haven’t noticed, “sex sells”.
>>There is a surprisingly large number of gay conservatives out there. Why not at least try to increase their numbers via diplomatic means?
>Even the Democrats know that attempting to win the votes of active homosexuals is a fool’s errand for Republicans. All that will be gained by compromising the conservative position is the loss of the Republican base. The homosexuals are no more likely to vote against the homosexual party as black people are likely to vote against a black president.
The “Republican base” is a chimera manipulated by Wall St. and oligarch power brokers to rubber stamp their invisible hand strategies. It’s entertaining to me to see Freepers coming into line with lefty observations about police brutality, Wall St. chicanery, intel community shennanigans, America as global policeman, big pharma, the benefits of natural foods/alternative medicine and the pathology of bullying.
Your Republican base is on the verge of a Tea Part vs. Rino schism that could torpedo the US doing what Australia and Norway just did. We need to get smarter faster, that’s all there is to it.
Not at all. The Muslims are also attacking homosexuals and others throughout western Europe who offend their religious views. Entire neighborhoods in almost every major city are now considered off-limits to anyone considered non-traditional.
The so called “gay liberation” movement is emphatically NOT losing momentum in North America or Europe but continue to make inroads into mass media and education. As an FR reader you should know this from the many articles and threads on the subject, this one being not exceptional.
They have made some political headway, but the long-term demographics are completely against them.
The “sad pun” was unintended. I don’t spend a lot of time trying to make my posts into literary masterpieces.
This topic warrants care in the choice of one's words. Much of your writing here is very difficult to follow.
Clear your head and understand that modern technological society with massive lateral communication is the freest humans have ever been in all history, period. This freedom is what societies are coping with in an attempt to reset positive social behavior against a background of varying social conservatisms by definition.
Any human advance cuts both ways. The sweeping technological changes you speak of are irrelevant in the long-term to people who do not have children beyond replacement rate. Muslims don't teach "Timmy has Two Mommies" in the madrassas.
That what “society” is, a means of conserving positive normative behavior patterns, which have evolved through intense periods of zealotry and oppression.
You have a novel definition of society.
The root cause of Muslim intraction is precisely the effect of modernization upon a feudal tribalist cultural ethos.
That sounds like something taught in a large liberal-arts colleges.
Yes, but not to the degree you assume. And you’ll have to convince me that these commies are not the ones responsible for the sexual conservatism found presently in Russia, China and North Korea.
In my travels I haven't seen any of the conservatism you refer to.
The corrupting of ethics and morals in the West, which you correctly observe, is not the sole domain of Marxist influence. You will find it in Las Vegas, Wall St., New Orleans, Spring Break anywhere, porn markets anywhere with much of it an outgrowth of advertising. In case you haven’t noticed, “sex sells”.
That advertising maxim may or may not be true. The question here is the type and orientation. Homosexuality tends to be generally unpopular as most people recoil from it.
The “Republican base” is a chimera manipulated by Wall St. and oligarch power brokers to rubber stamp their invisible hand strategies. It’s entertaining to me to see Freepers coming into line with lefty observations about police brutality, Wall St. chicanery, intel community shennanigans, America as global policeman, big pharma, the benefits of natural foods/alternative medicine and the pathology of bullying.
Not following you there, but the Republican base was and remains socially conservative.
Your Republican base is on the verge of a Tea Part vs. Rino schism that could torpedo the US doing what Australia and Norway just did. We need to get smarter faster, that’s all there is to it.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. You and I seem to have some beliefs in common, but I do not share your pessimism and eagerness to appease, surrender, and attempt to assimilate the homosexual movement. Although the pendulum may have swung in their favor in recent decades, all future indicators are against them. Demographics is destiny, and the homosexual movement has no heirs.
It has been very difficult to understand your typing and the nature of the argument you are attempting to make. Proof reading your posts is a common courtesy. So, I'll leave it here and give you the last word.
And no mention of how much they *hate* God’s rules over His creation...planet earth. They ignore the owner’s manual to their own peril.
I’ve barely pinged anything for quite a while.
I better start my pinging again.
For some reason the elites are all jumping on the sodomy train. It’s like the end of the Roman empire or something.
Why are you such an expert on faggot conservatives? If there were so many, odd that we never hear from them.
Your overweening arrogance is duly noted.
>>There is a surprisingly large number of gay conservatives out there. Why not at least try to increase their numbers via diplomatic means?
>Why are you such an expert on faggot conservatives? If there were so many, odd that we never hear from them.
Stop talking through your hat and do some ding dong research:
http://gayconservative.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism
>Your overweening arrogance is duly noted.
Anyone who interprets actual knowledge as arrogance is an ignoramus. We need to get smarter faster, that’s all there is too it.
>Not at all. The Muslims are also attacking homosexuals and others throughout western Europe who offend their religious views. Entire neighborhoods in almost every major city are now considered off-limits to anyone considered non-traditional.
Those “entire neighborhoods” are Muslim ghettos that are off limits to ANYONE not Muslim, including the police. I don’t see how you can conclude that this indicates a roll back of gay rights. With information at our fingertips, remaining uninformed becomes politically deadly, ask Rush Limbaugh who coined the term “low information voter” then read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_first_LGBT_holders_of_political_offices
>They have made some political headway, but the long-term demographics are completely against them.
See the above link.
>This topic warrants care in the choice of one’s words. Much of your writing here is very difficult to follow.
We need to get smarter faster, and that include you.
>Any human advance cuts both ways. The sweeping technological changes you speak of are irrelevant in the long-term to people who do not have children beyond replacement rate. Muslims don’t teach “Timmy has Two Mommies” in the madrassas.
1) Islam is not going to save the world from the gay scourge. 2) Not having children directly (ever hear of surrogate parenthood?) doesn’t seem to have kept them from reaching numbers and influence enough to cause you to worry about it or to have a strong opinion about it.
>>That what “society” is, a means of conserving positive normative behavior patterns, which have evolved through intense periods of zealotry and oppression.
>You have a novel definition of society.
If a society is not defined by the behavior patterns it protects and causes to endure through conflict, then it’s defined by what, the rate at which it decays and dies? Sheesh.
>>The root cause of Muslim intraction is precisely the effect of modernization upon a feudal tribalist cultural ethos.
>That sounds like something taught in a large liberal-arts colleges.
Now there’s an insightful rejoinder. What you really need to understand is how those “large liberal arts colleges” became leftist revetments, how did they get that way? Who was asleep at the wheel? If our education system is such a powerful society shaping asset, then how the hell did we lose control or fail to take control of it?!
>>Yes, but not to the degree you assume. And you’ll have to convince me that these commies are not the ones responsible for the sexual conservatism found presently in Russia, China and North Korea.
>In my travels I haven’t seen any of the conservatism you refer to.
Good grief, Putin just announced the disfavor which he feels towards gay rights and it hit the front pages around the world. This stuff is only a mouse click away, no excuse. Read this:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/58593/putin-s-war-on-gays-a-timeline-of-homophobia
>>The corrupting of ethics and morals in the West, which you correctly observe, is not the sole domain of Marxist influence. You will find it in Las Vegas, Wall St., New Orleans, Spring Break anywhere, porn markets anywhere with much of it an outgrowth of advertising. In case you haven’t noticed, “sex sells”.
>That advertising maxim may or may not be true. The question here is the type and orientation. Homosexuality tends to be generally unpopular as most people recoil from it.
Don’t wiggle out of the point I’m making- our culture is also being assaulted by free market advertising which comprises 10% of all media watched and listened to. If the gays had that much air time, you’d freak. That’s the problem, advertising is corrupting in ways that are accepted and are surreptitious and mostly occur with little protest. Ever see a Calvin Klein billboard? You can’t blame it all on the commies. That’s exactly the same as “Bush did it”.
>>The “Republican base” is a chimera manipulated by Wall St. and oligarch power brokers to rubber stamp their invisible hand strategies. It’s entertaining to me to see Freepers coming into line with lefty observations about police brutality, Wall St. chicanery, intel community shennanigans, America as global policeman, big pharma, the benefits of natural foods/alternative medicine and the pathology of bullying.
>Not following you there, but the Republican base was and remains socially conservative.
I can’t make it any clearer. Apparently you don’t hang out here much. If the cops break down your door by mistake and shoot the dog, I expect you’ll be looking for a civil rights lawyer, just like any liberal. Read my comment again, it’s in plain English.
>>Your Republican base is on the verge of a Tea Part vs. Rino schism that could torpedo the US doing what Australia and Norway just did. We need to get smarter faster, that’s all there is to it.
>I have no idea what you are talking about here.
This is not rocket science. Australia and Noway just elected conservative governments. There have been probably 20-30 posts about this on FR the past week. The fact that the term RINO exists _means_ there is a schism in the Republican Party. Hello!
>>You and I seem to have some beliefs in common, but I do not share your pessimism and eagerness to appease, surrender, and attempt to assimilate the homosexual movement.
It’s not an eagerness to please or surrender anything, it is simply not a strategically relevant issue towards which to throw resources in the present economic state of emergency. We need to overthrow the Wall St. financial oligarchy, period. Their predecessors are who we fought our revolution against.
>Although the pendulum may have swung in their favor in recent decades, all future indicators are against them. Demographics is destiny, and the homosexual movement has no heirs.
Not a strong argument. Their demographics have done nothing but improve. See the above links. Learn to chart a graph.
>It has been very difficult to understand your typing and the nature of the argument you are attempting to make. Proof reading your posts is a common courtesy. So, I’ll leave it here and give you the last word.
All I’ve done is utilize the evidence available to any citizen via the Internet. It’s easy, you should try it.
If homosexual is conservative, he or she will not be on board with the homosexual agenda. The “Log Cabin Republicans” and GOProud pretended to be “gay conservatives” and both orgs were just Trojan horses.
The homoesxual agenda, including fag marriage, is non-conservative and unconstitutional and an open door to perversion, destruction of the natural family, marriage and the social fabric, as well as ushering in tyranny.
When homosexuals start being vocal about their opposition to the homo agenda, I’ll listen to them.
Until then - they’re part of the problem, no matter how much they advsertise themselves one way or another.
Speaking of advertising, I got as far as this on the wiki link, merely more advertising.
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2013)
This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (September 2010)
>>Speaking of advertising, I got as far as this on the wiki link, merely more advertising.
>>This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2013)
This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (September 2010)
Dude, this is avoidant behavior, what are you afraid of?
Avoidance? I took a look at the wiki “info” and it’s some peoples’ personal opinions. I took a look at the second, and the same thing.
Anyone who self identifies as a “gay” this or a “gay” that is mentally ill. If a person with homosexual issues identifies with something other than his perversion, then such a person might hold conservative (ie Constitutionally valid) viewpoints. But if sexual perversion comes first, then there is no way that person is “conservative”.
I’m wondering what you’re trying to imply that I am afraid of.
I will tell you what I am afraid of, in connection with the homo-nazi agenda. I’m afraid of our constitutional liberties being taken away and our society being destroyed. I’ve been afraid of this since the late 80s, and now it’s here.
FNC suffers NYC disease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.