By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media
When men dress as women and serve openly in the U.S. military, there are bound to be problems identifying these people. But don’t worry. The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) has come to the rescue. This special interest group, backed financially by all the major media organizations, has issued special guidance in the form of an “open letter” to the media on how the “transgendered” are supposed to be covered.
For example, it says that referring to “transgender woman” or “transgender man” is acceptable on first reference, but that subsequent references should refer to a transgender woman as a “woman” or a transgender man as a “man.”
In other words, forget about someone’s DNA, the scientific and objective measure of one’s gender and sexual identity. The “open letter” makes that clear, noting that someone’s sex “assigned at birth” is not relevant to one’s “gender identity.”
We are told that the term “transvestite” is an “antiquated term” and should be avoided.
Transvestite or cross-dresser are terms that used to refer to Corporal Klinger wearing dresses and women’s hats as a character on the comedy show M*A*S*H. It was his attempt to get discharged. Today, in real life, Obama’s Defense Secretary Ash Carter hasannounced the transgendered can serve openly without fear of being discharged.
Under the Constitution, the Congress is supposed to make the rules and regulations for the Armed Forces. Article I, Section 8, clause 14 says, “The Congress shall have Power To …make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces….”
Our media reported the policy change without explaining on what basis, legal or constitutional, the change was made.
CNN simply said Carter had removed “one of the last barriers to military service by any individual,” and that he “had been studying the issue for almost a year.”
The New York Times said, “The decision pushes forward a transformation of the military that Mr. Carter has accelerated in the last year with the opening of all combat roles to women and the appointment of the first openly gay Army secretary.”
On what basis, however, can Carter or his boss Obama “transform” the military? The original ban on homosexuals in the military was changed through congressional action. There has been no congressional lifting of the ban on the transgendered.
Columnist and radio commentator Bryan Fischer noted that “President Obama and the Pentagon have violated the Constitution and committed an impeachable offense by unilaterally admitting transgenders, transvestites, and transexuals into the military.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council noted that the enormously unpopular and disruptive policy is being implemented “without Congress’s approval.” Such a move has constitutional and legal implications.
House Committee on Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) issued a statement questioning the change, but did not assert the constitutional requirement that the new policy be approved by Congress before taking effect. Once again, Congress has abdicated its responsibility.
This is, of course, no concern to the NLGJA, which monitors the media to make sure not that the Constitution is followed but that the demands of the gay lobby be met.
Thornberry says that “when we learned DOD was looking at new policies on the service of transgender individuals, the Committee posed a number of questions to DOD. In particular, there are readiness challenges that first must be addressed, such as the extent to which such individuals would be medically non-deployable. Almost a year has passed with no answer to our questions from Secretary Carter.”
How’s that for an executive branch out of control and showing complete disdain for Congress?
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,called for hearings, saying that the military “is facing historic readiness shortfalls, putting our service members’ lives at greater risk.” Instead of addressing these problems, Inhofe noted that the Obama administration is “forcing their social agenda” through the Department of Defense.
Inhofe did not question the legal or constitutional basis of what Obama and Carter had done.
Perhaps a hearing will attempt to answer the questions posed by Roger Severino of The Heritage Foundation:
- Will biological males who identify as female be subject to physical fitness requirements for men or women?
- Will they be required to do 35 pushups or 13 pushups to pass basic training?
- Will American taxpayers be required to pay for expensive “sex reassignment” surgeries, including breast implants in men and shaving down Adam’s apples when that money can be spent on better weapons or more training?
- Will service members who have addressed an officer as “sir” for years be booted out of the military if they refuse to address him as “ma’am?”
- Wouldn’t the loss and impact on recruiting offset any supposed gains of allowing a relatively few transgender troops the ability to dress according to their chosen identity?
One of these questions has already been answered. Carter said that by October 1, 2016, DOD will “create and distribute a commanders’ training handbook, medical protocol and guidance for changing a service member’s gender in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System (DEERS),” and that the services “will be required to provide medically necessary care and treatment to transgender service members.”
At a briefing, Carter said, “The transgender individual, like all other service members, will get all medical care their doctors deem necessary.”
None of this is a controversy for the major media, which finance the NLGJA and do not dare question this radical sexual agenda. As reported extensively by Accuracy in Media, the NLGJA holds conferences and fundraisers on a regular basis that are sponsored by all of the major news organizations.
A benefit for the NLGJA in New York featured what the group itself called “some of the biggest names in media.” They included:
- Don Lemon of CNN
- Tamron Hall of NBC
- Simon Hobbs of CNBC
- Alisyn Camerota of CNN
- Christine Romans of CNN
- Poppy Harlow of CNN
- Harris Faulkner of Fox News
A more recent benefit event for the NLGJA in Los Angeles was sponsored by Comcast/NBC Universal and CBS News.
If members of Congress challenge this “transformation” of the military and assert their legislative powers, they would be going up against two of the most powerful interest groups in the country—the gay lobby and the major media.
So they take the easy way out by asking a few questions and meekly requesting hearings.
It’s difficult to know which is declining at a more rapid rate — the morality of the country or the relevance of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps they are both hitting rock bottom at the same time.
By: John Hawkins
Scott Walker’s campaign caught flack for hiring Liz Mair earlier this year. Liz, whom I know and respect despite the fact she’s well to the left of me on a number of issues, made the mistake of slamming Iowa’s position in the primary system. Most conservatives don’t like Iowa having so much sway in the GOP primaries, but most conservatives also aren’t working for a candidate who’s running in those primaries either. After Walker caught flack from Iowans over Mair’s remarks, she ended up resigning. That’s too bad because Liz is an excellent digital media strategist, but once her comments became a big enough issue to actually hurt Walker in the primary, it put him in a very difficult position.
Today, he’s in a much worse position because Scott Walker’s Unintimidated PAC has hired Brad Dayspring.
Some people might excuse Scott Walker for this hire because he currently can’t coordinate with the PAC. However, people in the know realize that’s a cop-out. The PAC is run by former high-level Scott Walker staffers who would NEVER deliberately do anything he doesn’t agree with. Furthermore, you can be sure that there was PLENTY of coordination between Walker and his staffers right up until the moment he was legally unable to continue to do so. Is it possible that he personally approved the hiring of someone like Dayspring beforehand? Absolutely, but a big part of the value of PACs like this one is that they create a degree of separation between the candidate and the PAC. The PACs can run dirty ads and they can hire dirtbags who will undermine grassroots conservatives at every opportunity and supposedly, the candidate can’t be blamed.
Well, not this time.
Walker shouldn’t get a pass if his PAC keeps Dayspring on staff — and this is no small matter. If Walker becomes our nominee and wins the election, many of the staffers on his campaign and his PAC will end up working in the White House. The people holding those positions will have a tremendous impact on the sort of policies we’ll see. For example, one of the reasons that Ted Cruz has been such a champion of conservatives is that he ended up bringing in a number of staffers from Jim DeMint’s office. When a politician surrounds himself with those sort of staffers, it’s no surprise when he ends up fighting the good fight. On the other hand, when a politician is surrounded by people like Brad Dayspring, you can be sure he’ll end up fighting conservatives. Want an example? Brad Dayspring used to work for Eric Cantor. Was any grassroots conservative sorry when Cantor was beaten by Dave Brat?
Now, maybe the PAC just didn’t do its due diligence on Brad Dayspring. For example, maybe the PAC didn’t realize that he has a teen porn problem. Do the staffers who run Scott Walker’s PAC approve of that? People should ask them.
Here’s a little excerpt from Breitbart that will give you an introduction to one of the most loathsome people in the Republican Party and someone no grassroots conservative should ever trust.
There’s perhaps no Republican operative from the establishment side of the party, however, who’s been more effective in eliminating conservatives nationwide throughout the movement in recent years—and Team Walker’s decision to bring Dayspring aboard just a few months after the similarly problematic Liz Mair was let go could backfire in a significant way. The 2016 GOP presidential primary is shaking out to mirror the larger fight inside the Republican Party—the conservative grassroots is hungry for a Washington outsider, while the establishment side of the party is more interested in attempting yet again to win a general election without the GOP base.
“Brad Dayspring is well known as a despicable establishment operative who specializes in slander and character assassination against conservative candidates,” Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel—one such conservative Dayspring personally frequently attacked—told Breitbart News exclusively on Wednesday. “He is the perfect example of why conservatives no longer trust the GOP. He’s little more than a paid attack dog, without principle and honor, the personification of everything wrong with our present political system.”
“Scott Walker appears to be a good man with solid conservative instincts. But his hiring of the unstable Dayspring is an insult to honorable political discourse. If Dayspring is aligned with Walker, then conservatives should be warned to look elsewhere for leadership.”
Here’s more from Brent Bozell.
“Gov. Walker should have known better than to hire Brad Dayspring, the worst GOP anti-conservative hit man in Washington,” said Brent Bozell, the conservative chairman of ForAmerica and president of the Media Research Center. “Brad Dayspring has a despicable record using character assassination to besmirch the reputations of conservative candidates and public policy leaders. He’s paid to do the ugly work of the Washington establishment. He is the personification of everything that’s wrong in politics today. Gov. Walker, people are policy. If you want conservatives’ support, you need to get rid of this cretin immediately.”
Here’s Mark Levin on Dayspring.
Mitch McConnell’s National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) hit man, some idiot named Brad Dayspring, does not intimidate me and will not silence me with his sleazy inside-the-beltway tactics. In fact, I am more fired up than ever.
…Now, let me be clear. I hold McConnell and the chairman of the NRSC – Jerry Moran of Kansas – personally and politically accountable for the sleazy intimidation tactics of their current and former staffers. My opposition to McConnell’s re-election is underscored by pathetic behavior like this. Conservatives should not give a dime to the NRSC, money which is used to pay the salaries of these hit men and empower McConnell, et al.
Here’s more from Redstate.
As we have documented here on RedState, Brad Dayspring was one of the loudest lying voices in the dishonest, dishonorable, and disreputable campaign the NRSC waged on behalf of the mildly profoundly senile, corrupt, and adulterous Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) 46%. In this campaign Dayspring was front and center in lying about challenger Chris McDaniel. In fact, the scorched earth campaign waged by Dayspring against McDaniel exceeded any campaign the NRSC has ever run against a Democrat. He was also instrumental in launching attacks on the challenger to Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) 70%, Dr. Milton Wolf….
…Though there is no monetary teat, or other appendage, Dayspring won’t pull to extract cash, he routinely accuses conservatives, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%, and conservative organizations like the Family Research Council of putting fund raising ahead of principle– which to Dayspring equates with whatever Establishment corruptocrat he’s being paid to support. At a time when the best man for his wedding was under arrest for child pornography (and favoriting pornographic tweets) he accused Mark Levin and the Senate Conservative Fund of pay-to-play purchases of Levin’s book. This is simply another of the lies Dayspring has told, knowing them to be lies. And then he moves along to yet another lie.
….There is no way I will support Governor Walker so long as Dayspring is affiliated in any way, no matter how tangential, with his campaign. This hiring of a casual liar, of a man who sets about to destroy the reputations of anyone he is told to attack speaks ill of Governor Walker. If he keeps Dayspring, it also tells you that Governor Walker is no conservative. He has now become the designated establishment candidate. If Dayspring stays with the campaign, conservatives must oppose him no matter the cost.
I like Scott Walker a lot. He’s one of my favorite candidates in the race, but if Dayspring is allowed to continue on with his PAC, grassroots conservatives would be wise to be very cautious about rallying behind Walker. I would also strongly recommend that NO ONE give any money to Scott Walker’s PAC or his campaign as long as Dayspring is affiliated with it. If you’re a grassroots conservative, this guy is not your friend and no one who wants him in a key position is your friend either.
You can tell a lot about candidates by watching when they’re willing to stand and fight. The fact that Walker fought the UNIONS in WISCONSIN and WON three elections in four years going toe-to-toe with them speaks very highly of him. However, if his staffers are the sort of people who know what they’re getting with Dayspring and are willing to lose the support of a lot of grassroots conservatives to keep him on board, that tells you they’re planning to spend a lot of time FIGHTING CONSERVATIVES if Walker gets elected. We have too many people like that in Congress as it is and we certainly don’t need one in the White House.
So, if you’re concerned, tweet Scott Walker and the PAC’s digital media director, Brittany Cohan. You should also send an email to Unintimidated PAC. Be honest, but polite. If you’re a conservative fan of Walker who’s concerned, say so. If you don’t intend to give any money to the campaign or PAC as long as Dayspring is there, say so. Give them the benefit of the doubt — for now. But, if they hang onto Dayspring, it’s a neon warning sign about Walker that’s fifty feet high and conservatives should heed it.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
It’s strange that the liberals in the media who always complain about Joe McCarthy once having a list of communists in government are so quick to cite the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of so-called right-wing extremists or “haters.”
With the help of the media, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is setting people up for terrorist attacks inside the United States. Pamela Geller is the latest on the list of the SPLC that has now been targeted for death by the jihadists. ISIS says “…we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”
ISIS is angry that Geller, an opponent of jihad, has defended the First Amendment right of free speech against Islamic Sharia law.
In response, ISIS tried to massacre people at Geller’s Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas on Sunday. Two terrorists were killed and an unarmed security guard protecting the event was shot in the leg.
It’s an open secret that ISIS can get locations for its targets from the SPLC website. That’s how homosexual militant Floyd Corkins discovered the location of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. and showed up at its headquarters, opening fire on a security guard. He had hoped to conduct a massacre of FRC staff.
Indeed, Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible” and smear the 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches he was carrying in the victims’ faces. Chick-fil-A had been in the news because its CEO had defended traditional marriage.
As we noted in a previous column, “The SPLC targets its critics by name…labeling them ‘hate groups’ and running photographs of officers and employees so they can more easily be identified.”
The SPLC sends its “intelligence reports” around the country, listing people and groups by name with their locations. This puts the leaders of these groups and their families at risk of terrorist attack.
Rather than express disgust with this tactic, the media regard the SPLC as somehow a credible source of information.
This brings a human face to the slogan “if it bleeds, it leads,” and makes the media complicit in the planned jihad on American soil and its victims.
The SPLC exercises what journalist James Simpson calls “partisan tolerance,” which means conservatives and Christians must be demonized and destroyed. On the other hand, anyone on the left is acceptable. That’s why the SPLC hailed the “educational” work of Weather Underground terrorist bomber Bill Ayers.
As the leading spear-carrier in the cultural Marxist war on America, the SPLC is one of the most despicable groups on the political scene these days, and yet it is accepted by the media as somehow authoritative and respectable.
No matter how many times the group is exposed for sloppy research and money-making scams, it is still considered a source of legitimate information by some in the media.
That’s why its apparent role in the targeting for death of Pamela Geller has to be highlighted and exposed. News organizations are helping terrorist groups by giving the SPLC unwarranted sympathy and publicity.
ISIS has figured out that all it has to do in order to identify their critics is go to the SPLC website and search its “hate map” and various “lists” of so-called extremists. The SPLC makes it easy for terrorists to wage jihad on American soil.
Yet, for a time, the Obama/Holder Justice Department and its FBI openly collaborated with the SPLC. For example, Judicial Watch discovered that SPLC head Morris Dees had appeared as the featured speaker at a “Diversity Training Event” on July 31, 2012, at the Department of Justice. The FBI has even listed the SPLC as a credible source of information on “hate crimes.”
The SPLC tends to focus its critical attention on opponents of radical Islam and critics of the homosexual agenda.
The media’s reliance on this organization was disclosed publicly by the hapless Bob Schieffer on a recent “Face the Nation” episode when he interviewed Tony Perkins of the FRC and began by noting, “You and your group have been so strong in coming out…against gay marriage that the Southern Poverty Law Center has branded the Family Research Council an anti-gay hate group. We have been inundated by people who say we should not even let you appear because they, in their view, quote, ‘You don’t speak for Christians.’ Do you think you have taken this too far?”
This comment proves that Schieffer has lost it as a newsman. Did he even bother to investigate the SPLC? Was he aware of the terrorist attack on the FRC offices inspired by the SPLC?
Simply because the homosexuals inundated the CBS switchboard, Schieffer felt compelled to take their objections seriously. This is not the usual way journalism is done. But it’s the way liberals in the media operate. Their ignorance is astounding.
Geller understands what is happening and frames the issue this way: “Truth is the new hate speech.”
The media need to educate themselves quickly about how they are playing into the hands of not only the SPLC but the terrorists who are targeting enemies on American soil.
This assumes, of course, that the media do not want to inspire more violence in America.
Typically, the liberal media describe the SPLC as a “civil rights organization.”
For those in the media who want to avoid violence and report the facts, for a change, Jim Simpson’s recent talk on “cultural Marxism” is required viewing.
In a report, Simpson defines partisan tolerance as expressing “partisan hatred for everything non-leftist,” noting that it “seeks to actively muzzle the views of the majority.” This lies behind the labeling of conservatives and Christians as extremists or “haters.”
He notes that the concept of partisan tolerance is associated with cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse and is based on “an extreme arrogance that assumes they are infallible in their utopian fantasies, and have the right to impose their will on us no matter what we think.” The notion that all positions incompatible with leftist designs can and must be suppressed is at “the heart” of their worldview, Simpson points out.
He adds, “The idea was further developed in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, especially rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Alinsky popularized the tactic, but Marcuse invented the concept.”
In the ISIS message targeting Geller for death, the group said, “The next six months will be interesting…May Allah send his peace and blessings upon our prophet Muhammad and all those who follow until the last Day.”
It’s time for the media to stop encouraging the bloodshed.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
In a story about Bret Baier’s withdrawal from a Catholic conference, where he was going to speak about his Catholic faith, the website known as Mediaite noted that Republican Governor Bobby Jindal (LA) was going to go through with his appearance at the event. But the website warned him about the consequences of offending the homosexual lobby. “Given the controversy that follows House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) more than a decade after he allegedly spoke before a group connected to white supremacists, Jindal, who has presidential ambitions of his own, must be giving his appearance some serious thought right about now,” it said.
Hence, the philosophy of white supremacism associated with the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis is compared to Catholicism. That’s the message this so-called “respectable” source of news and information is sending. Jindal rejected that. The governor’s spokesman said, “Governor Jindal looks forward to addressing the summit and speaking about what faith means to him.”
The summit is sponsored by Legatus, a group that upholds the teachings of the Catholic Church on human sexuality and other matters.
If Baier was speaking at or attending a fundraiser for the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), that would have been perfectly okay. After all, many Fox media stars, including Megyn Kelly, have done so in the past. In addition, Fox pours money directly into this important lobby in the homosexual movement, and it’s not even a controversy.
What’s fascinating in this case is that the attacks which forced Baier and actor Gary Sinise out of the Legatus conference do not involve opening fire on anybody’s editorial offices and murdering the offenders. These things are mostly done differently in America. I say “mostly” because of the terrorist attack on the Washington, D.C. offices of the Family Research Council (FRC) in 2012. That was inspired by a “hate map” posted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) pinpointing the location of the FRC. A security guard was injured as he stopped a homosexual militant from trying to carry out a massacre in the FRC offices.
In most cases, however, the weapons of character assassination, distortion, and anti-Christian bigotry will suffice. The purpose is to intimidate and ostracize those who dare to associate with groups affirming traditional standards of morality. One of the new tactics, as used by Mediaite, is to associate Catholics with racial extremists. This is a smear that is beneath contempt, but the gay lobby and its fellow travelers will stop at nothing.
The message that the site was sending to Jindal is that he risks his political future by associating with a notorious hate group called the Catholic Church. It was a threat disguised as news.
The leftists have no quarrel with the views of the pope on economic matters. And they certainly won’t quibble with his encyclical on climate change when he issues that in March. But challenging the morality of the lifestyle of so many in Hollywood and the media is something else. Questioning the homosexual lifestyle simply cannot be tolerated.
Jindal, who is a Catholic, didn’t succumb to the pressure. He had the intestinal fortitude to remain true to his beliefs. He understood that the attacks on Legatus were an attack upon his own faith. He couldn’t back down and maintain his own principles. Jindal’s decision to stand up to the modern totalitarians in the gay rights movement has to be seen as courageous.
Backing out is especially troubling in the case of Bret Baier, since his speaking appearance at the Legatus summit was for the purpose of talking about his own Catholic faith expressed in his book, Special Heart: A Journey of Faith, Hope, Courage and Love. He wasn’t there to talk about gay rights. Neither was Sinise, for that matter.
Baier, or his corporate bosses, have to take the blame for giving in to the pressure. We would have thought that the Fox News Channel would have stood firmly for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. It sets a terrible precedent that a “conservative” news channel, which became successful by speaking for many without a traditional voice in the liberal media, should bow at the altar of political correctness. Why they buckled to the pressure is a story in itself.
As we have pointed out, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith is allowed to pontificate on the air, including on behalf of the gay rights cause. But a Bret Baier speech about his book at a Catholic event is supposed to be offensive. This is the state of our media today.
The tactics used by the homosexual lobby have been perfected by such groups as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American-Islamic Relations against their enemies. What’s new is that the official Catholic Church teachings on human sexuality are now labeled as so offensive that people can’t even be associated with a group that promotes them. This is the kind of religious discrimination we have seen in countries like France against the Jews.
Some in the media called the summit “anti-gay,” which is a complete lie. As Legatus Executive Director John Hunt said in a statement, “Legatus embraces all that the Catholic Church teaches—nothing more, nothing less. Of course, at the core of all that the Church teaches is Christ’s unconditional love for every man and woman. While the Church has and always will teach about the morality of certain behaviors, these teachings are always to be understood in the context of the value of and respect for every human person.”
Turning Christian love into “hate” is an indication of how a situation can be twisted into something it’s not. This is how political correctness, a form of cultural Marxism, works in practice. The homosexual lobby has perfected this tactic of intimidation.
Hunt said the group’s members are only asking for the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs, “which includes the ability to gather together and discuss their faith.”
That such a meeting has become controversial, to the point where major figures in the media and Hollywood can be forced to back out, is a terrible reflection on the condition of the First Amendment right to free speech in America today. The news organizations that are involved in this silencing of freedom of expression have shown they have no understanding of what “I am Charlie” is all about.