WorldNetDaily advanced false claims by anti-gay "critics" that a proposed bill would grant Obama administration official and longtime right-wing target Kevin Jennings "almost unlimited authority to mandate indoctrination in public schools." In fact, the bill -- intended to reduce discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools -- does not mention Jennings, provide any official with "almost unlimited authority," or "mandate indoctrination."
From the February 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor
Loading the player reg...
Apparently, neither does O'Reilly. Tonight, his show promises us a special report on "sexy snow angels," which apparently consists of "sultry skiers" and "steamy snowboarders," aka female Olympic athletes, who posed in, you guessed it, bikinis for Sports Illustrated. Take a look:
Flashback to 2007: Laura Ingraham was a guest on O'Reilly, and she really took O'Reilly and Fox News to task for its penchant of gratuitously airing video of half-naked women. Ingraham rightly argued: "I don't know if there's a rampant midlife crisis going on on this network among the male anchors, but I can tell you that my female listeners are saying ... what is the purpose? ... You can talk about cultural issues and cultural debates without running the constant loop of this video." The segment concluded with O'Reilly vowing, "No more bikinis! They're over," and promising to "[n]ever again" air images of, in Ingraham's words, women with "hands over the boobs."
Not surprisingly, this was a promise O'Reilly had absolutely no intention of keeping.
From the February 9 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
It's a safe assumption that newspapers receive letters to the editor on a daily basis from people who disagree with government policies. There's also no doubt that some are incendiary, hurtful, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, because, well, some people have those beliefs and aren't afraid to say so in a public forum.
But newspapers have differing standards for which letters actually make it into the paper. So, let's take a stab at guessing The Washington Times' standard. Here are snippets of letters that The Washington Times published, discussing the possible repeal of the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military.
From today's online paper, in which a reader argued that "homosexual orientation is contrary to human nature":
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates; and other so-called leaders are working to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Even psychiatrist-commentator Charles Krauthammer is saying that the law forbidding homosexuals to serve in the military should be changed because social mores have changed. That is false.
Homosexual propaganda has prevailed, but the natural law has not changed. The homosexual orientation is contrary to human nature, just as blindness and deafness are distortions of the anatomy/physiology of mankind. Just because some women have children out of wedlock does not mean society gives up on marriage. When will our political and moral leaders bow to the moral law and use it to guide human nature?
And another from yesterday, in which a reader compared military officials who oppose "allow[ing] avowed homosexuals to become Marines" to German soldiers who opposed Hitler:
A small group of German officers opposed the loyalty oath to Hitler despite great political pressure. They courageously honored and respected the moral and institutional values they represented and knew to be right. We who are Marines are proud to see that our commandant has shown similar courage in the face of political pressure to allow avowed homosexuals to become Marines.
A cold chill shivers down the spines of men when they contemplate the physical acts of homosexual behavior. It is important the American people know that their Marines, and our commandant, have spine enough to notice and oppose this folly. I hope they will honor the many generations of Marines who sacrificed for American freedom and will remember to vote for and support those who will work to "keep our honor clean."
Now, to be fair, some newspaper editors do opt to print objectionable letters because they either want to err on the side of inclusion, or they think it's necessary to show that some extreme views exist in the public discourse. For example, John Taylor, former president of the National Conference of Editorial Writers, told The Poynter Institute in 2003 that his paper elects to print some offensive letters because a "viewpoint that many find objectionable is a real viewpoint and it exists in the community. And we ought not to be asleep to that, because if you're asleep to those kinds of views, that's how they prosper." But, he added, the opinion pages are "about presenting divergent points of view, a spectrum of views."
Not so for the Times. Its letters fit right in with the homophobic rants that the Times' purportedly professional columnists like editor emeritus Wes Pruden and Frank Gaffney have published on the opinion pages since the first murmurs of repealing "don't ask, don't tell," emerged. Media Matters has extensively documented the paper's history of anti-gay rhetoric, and since at least the beginning of this year, Times readers have been treated to nothing but opposition to the repeal of DADT on the Times opinion pages. If their readers want divergent beliefs on DADT, the opinion pages certainly aren't the place to see them.
Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid has emerged as perhaps the most full-throated defender of Uganda's proposed anti-gay law, which adds Draconian penalties -- including death -- for alleged crimes related to homosexuality. Most recently, Kincaid has been portraying the views of a pair of anti-gay activists in Uganda as representative of all 30.9 million Ugandans, though without offering any evidence that this is the case.
In a February 3 column headlined "Uganda Confronts 'Loud-mouthed Homosexual Lobby,'" Kincaid claims that a "leading pro-family activist in Uganda says that Christians in that East African country need help resisting the schemes of the international homosexual lobby." This person is the only one he quotes. This was followed by a February 5 column headlined "Uganda Rejects Obama's Pro-Homosexual 'Change,'" in which, again, only one person is quoted, "Ugandan Christian minister Martin Ssempa." Kincaid doesn't mention that Ssempa has been screening images of gay pornography in Uganda to whip up support for the bill.
In the February 5 column, Kincaid writes: "Accuracy in Media's review of coverage of the so-called 'Kill the Gays' bill in Uganda finds that it has been completely one-sided, inaccurate, and distorted beyond belief. Contrary to press accounts, the legislation is not designed to kill homosexuals but discourage and punish homosexual practices which spread disease and death. Christians in Uganda are trying to build a culture of life and avoid the sexual perversions which have devastated families in the U.S."
In fact, one of the offenses of "aggravated homosexuality" that would warrant a death penalty in the bill is being a "serial offender," which the bill defines as "a person who has previous convictions of the offence of homosexuality or related offences." In other words, if you were convicted of previous homosexual behavior -- or even one of the "related offences" such as "failure to disclose" homosexual acts or "conspiracy to engage in homosexuality" -- and were convicted of it again, you could be put to death.
While there has been much discussion of amending the bill, it has not yet been amended. So as the bill currently stands, despite Kincaid's insistence, mere homosexual behavior is a capital offense under the bill, meaning that it will, in fact, "kill the gays."
There are other things Kincaid doesn't mention -- for instance, the fact that the bill applies to Ugandans not living in the country. He's also quiet about another inconvenient fact: In Uganda, HIV has historically been spread mostly through heterosexual or mother-to-child contact.
It seems that, when it comes to his own writing, Kincaid doesn't believe in fulfilling the promise of his employer's name.
From RedState managing editor Erick Erickson's Twitter feed:
From a StarKist statement posted on StopBeck.com, accessed February 8:
Our television media purchases are dictated by our marketing plan and are chosen based on time of day, such as early morning (6:00 - 10:00 a.m.) or primetime (8:00 to 11:00 p.m.); channel (ABC, Lifetime, ESPN, etc.) and audience demographics.
We do not dictate what program is on when our commercial airs. But we do frequently evaluate our media purchases to ensure that the programs we choose match our brand's target demographics and overall advertising plan. In doing so, we have chosen to not air our commercial during Glenn Beck's program going forward given a number of alternatives that meet our advertising plan's criteria.
Thanks again for your inquiry.
StarKist Consumer Affairs
Media Matters first noted the appearance of a StarKist advertisement on February 1st.
When MoveOn ran a newspaper ad referring to General David Petraeus as "General Betray Us," the Washington Times was not amused. One Washington Times editorial said the ad "sets the new standard for bad-faith, motive-impugning argument. This is beyond the pale, sinking swiftly to the level of Klansmen and Neo-Nazis" and blasted MoveOn for suggesting Petraeus was not being honest. Another suggested MoveOn was guilty of "slandering" Petraeus. Another blasted the New York Times for running the ad:
He [New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt] also cites company policy against scurrilousness in advertising: "We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature," read the guidelines. Someone should have recognized that calling a decorated general a liar and a person likely to "Betray Us" is, in fact, an attack of a personal nature, even considering the very public circumstances.
The Washington Times was quite clear: ads calling a high-ranking military official a liar are deeply inappropriate. So imagine my surprise when this appeared in my email inbox this morning:
The email, sent by the Washington Times, was an ad from The Pray In Jesus Name Project, and it repeatedly accused Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen of lying to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
There's much more -- more than 2,400 words in all. Here's a representative sample:
Sadly, the pro-homosexual Mullen has believed the lies of homosexual propaganda, and deceived himself, and now deceived Congress, all the while claiming he wants a more honest policy that discourages lying, when in fact Mullen actually demands homosexuals tell more lies to their military commanders when enlisting as open homosexuals. Here's a simple proof: Men who were created by God with male body parts are not women, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, women. Women who were created by God with female parts are not men, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, men.
Mullen's confused argument would permit men to deceptively act like women, and women to deceptively act like men, openly deceiving themselves, the world, and their military commanders, and boldface lying against God's very truth, that He created men to be men, and women to be women. But today's confusing homosexual propaganda equates "honesty" with men openly flaunting their femininity, and "truthfulness" with women openly flaunting masculinity. Who's really telling God's truth?
The Bible describes homosexual liars: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error." (Romans 1). Thank God Senator John McCain (R-AZ) denounced the Admiral's deceptive plan as destructive to the military, but Senator McCain needs your help to fight this open perversion, and protect our troops from open homosexual aggression...
CBS news interviewed homosexual Army Lt. Dan Choi, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at Werest Point who currently faces discharge for publicly announcing he's gay.
"I think it's a very healthy thing for people to be able to tell the truth and to come to terms with who they are. I think it's a sign of maturity," Choi said, "At my very first day at West Point, I learned that the honor code says a cadet will not lie, will not tolerate those who lie," said Choi. "They didn't say that a cadet who was gay could lie whereas straight cadets didn't have to lie."
As a USAF Academy graduate knowing the honor code, I now personally confront Choi as a liar, who now openly violates his honor oath, since he deceives himself and the world, by claiming to be feminine, when God created him masculine, with a male body. LIAR. Choi should immediately be thrown out of the Army, not merely for sexual perversion, but for DISHONESTY AND LYING. The only reason he graduated West Point is that he never lied by openly claiming to be feminine while a cadet, when God created him to be masculine. THIS PROVES DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS THE MOST HONEST POLICY, because it encourages people with sexual perversions not to openly lie about their sexual identity. But if DADT is repealed by Congress, men will claim to be women, and women will claim to be men, and the open season of dishonesty and lying will begin.
From Erick Erickson's Twitter feed:
From the February 8 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the February 6 edition of Fox News Watch:
Loading the player reg...
From a February 5 post by the Politico's Ben Smith:
Thompson, the wife of the former senator and presidential candidate, told POLITICO's Jonathan Martin that the remark, to Fox Business's Don Imus, amounted to misogyny, and that she was tired of seeing it from "these dirty old men" on Fox, a network that she said ought to be respectful of conservative women.
"Sarah Palin is now part of the Fox family," Thompson said on the show. "She deserves you all watching her back -- and I do not mean it literally."
Wallace, she said, "owes her an apology."
"Not only is she a national figure - she deserves the respect that any other man would get in that situation," Thompson said, saying that her inbox was full of complaints from conservative women over the segment, and that the Palin group Team Sarah, as well as the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, were dismayed by the segment.
"I hope that Fox does something about this, and they actually take this on, because it is not funny," Thompson said.
From the February 5 edition of Westwood One's The Fred Thompson Show:
J. THOMPSON: This is a good example of -- I'm sorry, we're going to have to say it. Old school, old men, mentality. And I can speak to that. So clever -
F. THOMPSON: Wait a minute --
J. THOMPSON: So cute, so contagious when it's such a, you know, such a guy talk thing. If Deirdre Imus was talked about that way, Don Imus would have, number one, either a nervous breakdown on his hands, or probably a divorce.
Not only was I insulted, you know, by the entire conversation here, I mean, I wonder how Chris Wallace, Mr. Newsman, feels about being chastised by Brian Kilmeade, the, you know, Fox & Friends sports guy down at the Super Bowl with a bunch of girls running around in, you know, spangles and he's the one being lectured for his not only inappropriate sort of jocularity, but then instead of actually taking ownership of it, he makes the classic mistake of going ahead and attacking [Fox & Friends co-host] Gretchen [Carlson] for saying that it's, you know, that it's irresponsi -- 'what would you do?' Well, Chris Wallace, I can think of several things that I would have done, and it would not have been any of the things that you've said.
Not only is she a national figure, she deserves the respect that any other man would get in this situation. In addition to that, Chris, I might point this out. If I were Sarah, I would not give you that interview. And I would say this to you, sir. Sarah Palin is now part of the Fox family. She deserves you all watching her back, and I do not mean it literally. I think he owes her an apology, and I hope Fox, actually takes him -- you know, we went after [Sen.] Arlen Specter [D-PA] for his lady comment to [Rep.] Michele Bachmann [R-MN]. I really think that Fox -- I want better from Fox. I want, we deserve better from them if we're going to give them the attention and the audience that we give them. And I want them to do something about it.
I'm not the only one. Team Sarah and the Susan B. Anthony List, I know they're upset about it. We -- this stuff, it's so cute. It's so fun. 'Ah-ha.' 'No, it's not really women-hating, it's not really misogynistic, it's just kind of silly.' It's this sort of insipid behavior that keeps someone like Sarah Palin from actually being vice president or president. It keeps Hillary Clinton from actually -- for the success and the good things that she's done, whether you agree with her or not, it keeps her from being in a different place. It is not a glass ceiling here. It is this sort of stuff that we just cannot tolerate, and I -- I'm sure I'm not the only one out there. My email box was full this morning from people that saw that. They said, 'you know, Chris Wallace, you put yourself out there to be a journalist.' You need to do something about this. And I hope that Fox does something about this and that they actually take this on because this is not funny.
In a February 5 letter to Rush Limbaugh, Tim Shriver, chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, wrote that he "incredulously listened to the segment in your show in which you repeatedly and offensively used the term 'retard' in reference to our meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel."
Media Matters for America documented Limbaugh's use of the term on his February 3 show. While discussing Sarah Palin's call for Emanuel's resignation for using the term, Limbaugh stated, "Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards." The next day, Limbaugh claimed that he used the word "retard" only in "quoting Emanuel."
In his letter, Shriver wrote, "Our message is as simple as it is powerful: people with intellectual disabilities are human beings. Gaining social recognition of that humanity continues to be an elusive goal for them and for those who love and care about them. For centuries, they have borne the stigma of institutionalization, sterilization, social isolation, and bigotry. The names associated with them -- such as 'retarded' and 'retard' -- have for too long been used as cruel taunts."
Shiver further called on Limbaugh to join Special Olympics athlete Loretta Claiborne by "ending your use of this term and by further using your great influence and position to help others do the same."