Avowed Atheist S.E. Cupp Pushes For Conservatives To Accept Gay Adoption

It's amazing that more conservatives don't call out Cupp (a so-called "conservative" who gets her paycheck from a decidedly liberal, cable news network) for her belief that God doesn't exist, esp when she spouts liberal nonsense. Dogma is important in establishing one's roots, esp. when it comes to political commentary. Cupp is an avowed atheist who is constantly attempting to pull conservatives to the Left (ala Megan McCain) on social conservative issues (she also supports "gay marriage"). In other words listening to Cupp speak on social conservative issues is like listening to someone who calls themselves a "vegetarian" spouting the benefits of eating Kentucky Fried Chicken....you can't and shouldn't take them seriously:

On Tuesday, MSNBC host and New York Daily News columnist S.E. Cupp addressed what she thinks is a deficiency in the conservative political platform relating to issues relating to the promotion of life and parenthood: support for adoption rights. Cupp said that the GOP would be well served to aggressively support the right of all parents, both straight and gay, to adopt legally. She said this is both a “moral imperative” and “good politics.”


Cupp began her segment on MSNBC’s The Cycle highlighting the values promoted by the A&E reality program Duck Dynasty. She said that this show counters the values elevated by other reality shows that promote teen pregnancy and promiscuity. 

“It’s a series that should be applauded for its moral fortitude and honesty,” Cupp opined. “It made me realize that the pro-life movement has been missing something and Republicans have dropped the ball.”

She said that the pro-life and conservative political movements need to make celebrating and reducing the barriers to legal adoption a top priority. 

“While it’s right and important that we oppose the liberal Planned Parenthood abortion agenda, we haven’t offered women a compelling alternative with a strident voice,” she continued. 

“We also have to embrace gay adoption,” Cupp declared. “This will not be comfortable, but it is morally imperative. It’s also good politics at a time when it seems the abortion conversation is fraught with so many perils and pitfalls for conservative politicians.” 

“We should want every child to be born into loving homes,” Cupp said. “The loving homes are there, ready, and waiting. Let’s make this a top priority.”

New Study Finds Media Bias in Gay Marriage Coverage

This can't possibly shock anyone:

The Pew Research Center has released a study examining media coverage of gay marriage during the period leading up to, during, and after Supreme Court hearings on the issue.

In a period marked by Supreme Court deliberations on the subject, the news media coverage provided a strong sense of momentum towards legalizing same-sex marriage, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center. Stories with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1. 

In the coverage studied, the central argument among proponents of same-sex marriage was one of civil rights. Arguments against were more varied, but most often voiced the idea that same-sex marriage would hurt society and the institution of traditional marriage.

Almost half (47%) of the nearly 500 stories studied from March 18 (a week prior to the Supreme Court hearings), through May 12, primarily focused on support for the measure, while 9% largely focused on opposition and 44% had a roughly equal mix of both viewpoints or were neutral. In order for a story to be classified as supporting or opposing same sex marriage, statements expressing that position had to outnumber the opposite view by at least 2-to-1. Stories that did not meet that threshold were defined as neutral or mixed.

This study confirms what most of us already suspected: that the surge in public support for gay marriage has been a phenomenon largely driven by the media. There’s little doubt that gay marriage is in vogue – 70% of young adults (ages 18 to 29) are in favor. As the group most engaged with new media trends and thus most susceptible to media bias, this demographic’s overwhelming support is a strong indicator of media’s seminal role in shaping gay marriage opinions.

Of course, when it comes to reporting bias, the perpetual question is whether the media is a molder or reflector of public attitudes. On this matter, though, it seems pretty clear. Reporting bias in the Pew study was 47% in favor to 9% opposed; that study registers present public support as 51% in favor to 42% opposed. Media favoritism for gay marriage far outstrips that of the public at large.

The most common media argument – that this issue is one of civil rights – merits a comparison of the gay marriage movement with that of black civil rights. As I see it, despite superficial similarities, the comparison breaks down once you get to the fundamental nature of the two movements. The black civil rights movement, at its core, was a cause championed primarily on a grassroots level. Massive demonstrations, strikes, and sit-ins precipitated change that eventually spread to journalism and government. Gay marriage, on the other hand, has not seen collective action on this scale. In fact, the push for gay marriage originated at the top and trickled down, whereas black civil rights was more bottom-up. This is especially evident when you delve into economic trends. Individuals with family incomes over $75,000 support gay marriage, whereas those who earn less are split about evenly.

This probably all boils down to the high socioeconomic status enjoyed by many gays compared to other minority groups. With this wealth and influence, it made sense for them to utilize media as the primary tool for advancing their agenda instead of orchestrating large-scale demonstrations. Black Americans in the ‘50s and ’60s, on the other hand, lacked these resources, so their only option was massive collective action. With Supreme Court decisions on DOMA and California’s Prop. 8 due any day now, it will be interesting to see whether media and public attitudes affect the Court’s judgments.

RELATED:  Supreme Court could make gay marriage decision Monday

Politiks As Usual: In The News 6/17/13

Environmental Advocates, Visitors Question Removal of BP Oil Cleaning Crews in Gulf

Plane Carrying George W. Bush Diverted After Smell of Smoke

ENDA and the Coming Wave of Lawsuits

Latest Liberal Talking Point: You're Obamaphobic

Obama: 'There Will Never Be a Substitute For' Fathers; Obama's DOJ: Children Don't Need Fathers

No Conservatives on Columbia School of Journalism Gay Marriage Panel 

TMI: John Stamos to Host Entire Show About ‘Losing Your Virginity’

Greenwald Slams Media for Backing Obama's Domestic Surveillance When They Opposed Bush's

Rubio: Obama's Inaction on Syria Led to 'Worst Possible Scenario'

Gender-Swapping 'Bathroom Bill' Passes Senate Committee in California

Obama’s ‘Social Innovation’ Slush Fund 

Morally Bankrupt President Barack Obama ‘Strongly Objects’ to Religious Liberty Amendment

Anyone who has paid attention to the white, liberal, anti-God agenda of the Obama administration shouldn't be surprised by this news:

The Obama Administration “strongly objects” to a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have protected the religious rights of soldiers – including evangelical Christian service members who are facing growing hostility towards their religion.

The amendment was authored by Rep. John Fleming, R-La. It would have “required the Armed Forces to accommodate ‘actions and speech’ reflecting the conscience, moral, principles or religious beliefs of the member.”

The Obama Administration said the amendment would have a “significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.”

“With its statement, the White House is now endorsing military reprimands of members who keep a Bible on their desk or express a religious belief,” Fleming told Fox News. “This administration is aggressively hostile towards religious beliefs that it deems to be politically incorrect.”

Fleming introduced the amendment after a series of high-profile incidents involving attacks on religious liberty within the military- including an Air Force officer who was told to remove a Bible from his desk because it might give the impression he was endorsing a religion.

He said there are other reports of Christian service members and chaplains being punished for their faith.

• The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it include the word “God.” The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists.
• A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.
• An enlisted service member received a career-ending punishment for sending personal invitations to his promotion party which mentioned that he would be providing Chick-fil-A sandwiches due to his respect for the Defense of Marriage Act.
• A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.
• A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.
• An enlisted service member was threatened and denied promotion by a senior NCO for expressing – during a personal conversation – his religious belief in support of traditional marriage.

RELATED:  George W. Bush Gets First Positive Rating Since 2005: Poll

ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Obama Administration Over NSA’s ‘Unconstitutional And Un-American’ Surveillance

Mediaite.com:

As many pundits have been pointing out over the last several days, the NSA leaks concerning widespread surveillance of all Americans has created some strange bedfellows. But now it has also created some unexpected enemies. The American Civil Liberties Union, often viewed as a liberal institution, has filed a lawsuit against Obama administration officials that claims the NSA’s “dragnet” data collection is illegal and should be stopped.

ACLU spokesperson Alexander Abdo announced the lawsuit on Fox News with Neil Cavuto this afternoon, saying the government “shouldn’t be indiscriminately sweeping up the communications of millions of innocent Americans.” He called the revelations last week about large-scale surveillance programs by the NSA “unconstitutional and un-American.” 

“For 200 years, our government has been able to keep us safe while staying true to” the values in the Constitution, Abdo said. “There’s no reason we need to sacrifice those values now.” When presented with the irony of his organization suing President Obama‘s administration after previously finding so much common ground with Senator Obama, Abdo said the explanation lies in the “seductive” nature of power.

“Power can be seductive and especially in the era of Big Data,” he said, “where it’s increasingly easy for the government to aggregate all sorts of information about Americans.” Abdo added, “It’s understandable that the government is trying to do this, but it’s simply not constitutional.”

RELATED:  In Defense Of Nuance: Edward Snowden Is Both A Criminal And A Laudable Whistleblower

U.S. Soldier Who Read Conservative Books Now Faces Charges

Townhall.com:

A member of the U.S. Army Band who said he was reprimanded for having anti-Obama bumper stickers on his personal car, serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at a party and reading books written by conservative authors is now facing Article 15 charges – which cropped up shortly after he went public with his complaints.

Master Sgt. Nathan Sommers, a decorated soloist with the Army Band, is being charged under a federal law that permits commanding officers to conduct non-judicial proceedings for minor offenses.

Sommers is accused of giving a superior officer the wrong date for a doctor’s appointment. He’s also accused of failing to carry out an order. In order to comply with that order, Sommers would have had to disclose private information about his autistic son’s medical records. 

The charges were handed down one day after Sommers told Fox News that he was facing discrimination and persecution because of his conservative political and religious beliefs.

“The timing does seem strange,” retired Navy Commander John Bennett Wells told Fox News. “It’s suspicious. No matter what’s happening it looks like a graduated attempt to build a case against him on some really ridiculous charges. 

Wells is representing the 25-year veteran who, until last summer, had a spotless record. 

The Military District of Washington disputed allegations that Sommers had been reprimanded or disciplined. 

“The Soldier is not, and never has been, ‘facing retribution and punishment from the military for having anti-Obama bumper stickers on his car, reading books written by conservative authors like Mark Levin and David Limbaugh, and serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at his promotion party,’” Public Affairs Director Michelle Roberts told Fox News in a written statement. 

However, Wells said that’s simply not true – and he said he’s got official Army documents to support his claims. 

”The MDW spokesman was either uninformed or was being disingenuous,” he said. “The counseling form clearly stated that he was being reminded of his limited ability to disagree with the President’s policies and implied that displaying the bumper stickers could lead to prosecution under the Hatch Act.” 

He said the counseling form also reprimanded Sommers for tweeting about the Chick-fil-A party. 

“The counseling form in itself is firm corroboration of the statements made by MSG Sommers to Fox News,” he said. “It also gives rise to the question of why the Army was data mining a soldier’s private tweets.” 

Sommers’ troubles started last year when he was confronted about having pro-Republican and anti-Obama bumper stickers on his personal vehicle.

RELATED: Video: Valedictorian silenced after mentioning God, faith

White, Liberal Tool Jason Collins Marches In Boston's Gay Pride Parade

Since most black Americans can't or don't want to think for themselves (which is why they vote overwhelmingly Democratic), they make for fine pickings for the anti-God, white, liberal agenda that serves one purpose: destroy Christianity by all means--a dogma well-suited for the ignorant, naive or just plain stupid. And that includes Jason Collins, an unknown bench player who toiled for years in the NBA who suddenly became famous after he announced to the world that he has sex with men in his private life. Once engaged to a woman for 9 years, Collins has righted himself as the "first active" openly gay NBA player and is now enjoying all the acclaim and notoriety that comes with publicly serving the devil. But hey being a tool for the Godless sure beats living a life in relative obscurity:

NBA veteran Jason Collins has marched in Boston's gay pride parade with Massachusetts Congressman Joe Kennedy III, his onetime roommate at Stanford University.

Collins wore a T-shirt that read #BeTrue when he joined thousands of marchers Saturday.

In April, Collins became the first active player in one of the four major U.S. professional sports leagues to come out as gay. He wrote in an article for Sports Illustrated that the decision to go public came when Kennedy marched in last year's parade and Collins didn't feel that he could join him.

Collins also said the Boston Marathon bombing reinforced the notion that things can change in an instant, so he might as well live truthfully.

Collins played for six teams in 12 seasons and becomes a free agent next month.

RELATED: Belmont Student: “Jason Collins announcement was not heroic”

White Privilege And First Lady Michelle Obama’s White, Liberal, Lesbian Heckler

A point that I've been trying to make for years: how white liberals seem to think that they aren't held by the same bounds of white privilege (something black people in this country esp. need to be hip to) as their white, conservative (i.e. "RACIST!!!" counterparts. Leave it to someone I never agree with, far-Left writer (and noted Obama apologist) Tommy Christopher over at Mediaite, to point this out in regards to the recent Michelle Obama heckling incident:

The mainstream media’s narrative about First Lady Michelle Obama‘s handling of a heckler has largely been positive, but has also ignored the role of race in the incident, and its aftermath. Online, however, protester Ellen Sturtz and her supporters have been taking criticism over their perceived sense that interrupting Michelle Obama is not only something they’re entitled to do, but that Mrs. Obama somehow should have welcomed. The source of that sense of entitlement, the theory goes, is white privilege.

It’s no wonder that this facet of the heckling incident has been ignored by the mainstream media. White privilege is even more elusive to them than barely-coded racism, because the mainstream media’s point of view is overwhelmingly white. White privilege is like Palmolive; most white people don’t even know they’re soaking in it until Madge tells them they are, and even then, they don’t believe it. That denial is only strengthened when the person is, themselves, part of a persecuted minority.

In this case, Ellen Sturtz exercised her First Amendment right to interrupt Michelle Obama during a speech, and her right to do so is not in question. Whether it was a good idea is a separate question. She was agitating for an executive order banning discrimination by federal contractors, which can arguably be seen as an incremental step in the direction of the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA). As a beneficiary of straight white privilege, I can only offer my opinion, of limited value, that President Obama seems to have demonstrated that in his case, executive action tends to energize opposition. Patiently pursuing a durable solution instead has tended to work out better. Once again, that’s easy for me to say, since I already have the right to marry, and not be fired over my sexual identity, with the added bonus of ready access to taxicabs.
Also separate from this equation is the wisdom of targeting one of the most well-liked women in the country (despite years of vicious, unquestionably racial attacks by detractors), who is married to the president who has accomplished more for gay rights than any other in history. Throwing glitter on Michele Bachmann may not be all that effective, but at least it makes sense. On the other hand, we’re talking about the issue (although we should be pressing for ENDA, not an executive order), and even allies need to be pressed. From a PR standpoint, though, Mrs. Obama was the wrong choice.

What’s rankling many is Ellen Sturtz’s reaction to Michelle Obama’s kinda badass handling of her heckling. Unlike President Obama, who has a tendency to humor hecklers, sometimes to an absurd degree (Medea Benjamin‘s extended rant reminded me of nothing so much as Will Ferrell‘s Austin Powers character complaining at length about how badly burned he was), the First Lady enacted an instant referendum. Here’s how PolicyMic’s Lauren Rankin described Sturtz’s reaction:

The crowd responded with support for the First Lady while Sturtz was escorted out. And that’s where, if the First Lady was a white woman, the incident would have likely ended. But of course, Michelle Obama is not a white woman.

When interviewed after being escorted out of the fundraiser, Sturtz said of the First Lady, “She came right down in my face. I was taken aback.” Interesting. Sturtz assumed that because the First Lady is supposed to be the embodiment of grace and cool, that she should stand at her lectern and silently endure what she felt was blatant disrespect. Instead, Michelle Obama decided that she had had enough and instead of shouting from across the room, spoke to Sturtz face-to-face and demanded respect. I can’t help but think that if Hillary Clinton or Laura Bush had done the same, that we would all be nodding our heads in support of the First Lady defining how she wishes to be treated.

Rankin went on to point out the reactions of other liberals to the First Lady’s response:

The response has revealed the troubling reality that if you’re a strong, independent, educated, empowered black woman, you are held to a different standard. Everyone from New York Timescolumnist Nicholas Kristof to recent heckler of President Barack Obama and co-founder of Code Pink Medea Benjamin tweeted their disapproval at Michelle Obama’s response, criticizing the First Lady for her “lack of “diplomacy” and snidely labeling it as “not her finest moment.” These comments criticize both Michelle Obama’s intelligence and rationality.

Ellen Sturtz has the excuse of being an apparently inexperienced activist, who perhaps misjudged the intimacy of a private event, and who also had a bad example set for her. Barely a week earlier, Medea Benjamin had let fly at the President, and received praise in response. That experience apparently emboldened her to whitesplain the whole thing to Michelle Obama. Via Twitter:

.@MichelleObama should not have snapped at Ellen Sturtz, who was speaking up re Obama’s unfulfilled promise to LGBT folks re #ENDA Go Ellen!

@cindynorth1 Ellen didn’t scream, she talked gently. Mrs. Obama should have said “Thank you for expressing your concerns so passionately”

@cultofpolitics @MichelleObama By getting “in her face” and threatening to leave. Not very gracious. PS Ellen was happy to pay take mic.

It needs to be pointed out here that the news media reported Mrs. Obama “moving towards” or “approaching” Sturtz, which the video bears out, and not the more aggressive “in her face” framing. In case Benjamin’s lecture on manners didn’t quite deliver the message, her next tweet did (emphasis mine):

. @MichelleObama should have been coached, long ago, on how to deal diplomatically w people who stand up to protest govt policies.

Yeah, let’s get Professor Henry Higgins on that right away.

Now, my initial privileged white make reaction was that Michelle Obama could have won bigger had she looked Sturtz in the eye, and said “Excuse me, but have you met my husband? People hate him way more than they hate gay people. If he signed an executive order, it would make ENDA harder to get passed, not easier.”

However, Sturtz’s reaction made me realize that Mrs. Obama faced a different choice in that moment. Because he needs to avoid being seen as the Angry Black Man at all costs, President Obama has had to take a soft, Aikido-like approach to hecklers. The result has been that white people now feel like they can holler during his speeches like they’re at a Mystery Science Theater watch party. Faced with that prospect, Michelle Obama, who doesn’t have policy-making authority in her toolbelt, had to decide if this is how she wants all of her speeches to go, to have well-intentioned white people roll over her with what’s really important. Her decision was no.

This incident appears to have exposed a rift between communities that have become key allies to each other, and that’s unfortunate. Ellen Sturtz took her misguided stand by paying her way into a megabucks private fundraiser, which is emblematic of the privilege associated with gay rights. Rosa Parks couldn’t have done something like that. Coverage of LGBT rights issues centers around things like big gay weddings, and so I think the stakes involved have become diminished.

Being able to marry the person you love, and being free from the fear that you’ll be fired for who you are, are very important, but there’s even more at stake. What animates me to fight for marriage equality, and against employment discrimination, is the elimination of a second-class citizenship that directly contributes to a suicide rate, among gay teenagers, that is three times greater than average, and to violence against them. No imperfect messenger should obscure that, and hopefully, will not.

RELATED:  Audio: First Lady tells heckler that one of them is leaving the fundraiser

Martin Bashir: When Republicans say “IRS,” They’re Really Dropping the N-bomb on Obama

Well, you had to know it was coming, never a question of 'if', just 'when'. As is any and every criticism of the 1st half-black President, this IRS scandal must be "RACIST!!!" Any wonder MSNBC has been suffering so bad in ratings of late? It's really because of race-card idiots/liars like Martin Bashir:

On Wednesday, MSNBC host Martin Bashir accused President Barack Obama’s critics, who are focusing on the scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups, of using the IRS scandal in place of attacks on the president’s race. 

Bashir scolded a variety of Republican commentators who he said “laid the groundwork” for Mitt Romney to make a “racist comment” in 2012 when he joked that no one ever needed to ask for his birth certificate.

“And now, the IRS is being used in exactly the same way as they tried to use the president’s birth certificate,” Bashir said. “For Republicans like Darrell Issa, who knows something about arson, those three letters now stand for something inflammatory.”

“Republicans are using it as their latest weapon in the war against the black man in the White House,” he insisted.

Bashir then referenced a portion of an interview by the late Republican political consultant Lee Atwater from 1981:

Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N***er, n***er.”

“So, this afternoon, we welcome the latest phrase in the lexicon of Republican attacks on this president – the IRS,” Bashir said. “Three letters that sound so innocent, but we know what you mean.”

RELATED:  Martin Bashir Broadcasts Misleading Edit Of Lee Atwater Quote To Portray GOP As Racist

Michelle Obama Clashes With White, Liberal, Lesbian Heckler

Funny how white, liberal hecklers, who seem to always have no problem interrupting one of half-black, President Obama speeches, never catch any flack (or charges of "RACISM!!!") from the leftwing press. Funny too when you consider how much love POTUS and FLOTUS have shown for overwhelmingly white, anti-God, secular Left. Well, at least this, when it comes to getting heckled, one of them picked on the wrong Obama:

First lady Michelle Obama experienced a rare face-to-face encounter with a protester late Tuesday – approaching the activist and threatening to leave a fundraiser if the person did not stop interrupting her speech.

Obama was addressing a Democratic Party fundraiser in a private Kalorama home in Northwest Washington when Ellen Sturtz, 56, a lesbian activist, interrupted her remarks to demand that President Obama sign an anti-discrimination executive order.


Obama showed her displeasure – pausing to confront Sturtz eye to eye, according to witnesses.
“One of the things that I don’t do well is this,” she said to applause from most of the guests, according to a White House transcript. “Do you understand?”

A pool report from a reporter in the room said Obama “left the lectern and moved over to the protester.”

The pool report quoted Obama as saying: “Listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”

Obama’s suggestion that she would leave was not included in the official White House transcript.

The audience responded by asking Obama to remain, according to the pool report, which quoted a woman nearby telling Sturtz, “You need to go.”

Sturtz was escorted out of the room. She said in an interview later she was stunned by Obama’s response.

“She came right down in my face,” Sturtz said. “I was taken aback.”

Sturtz said she told Obama she was happy to take the microphone to plead her case, which, Sturtz said, appeared to fluster the first lady.

“I said I want your husband to sign the executive order,” Sturtz said. “Her husband could sign this order tonight and protect 22 percent of the work force in this country.”

Sturtz said she paid $500 to attend the fundraiser, part of a protest cooked up by the gay rights group GetEqual, which gained notice in Obama’s first term for hectoring him during speeches and demanding more action on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. Sturtz, who gave $5,000 to the Democratic Party and Obama’s campaign in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, said she was devoting herself to full-time activism now pressing the White House on the employment discrimination issue.

Tom Brokaw on Eric Holder: If It Was John Ashcroft, ‘The Left Would Be Going Very Hard After Them’

Conservatives can surely recall too how the hypocrites on the Left went hard calling for former Bush AG Alberto Gonzales for having the gall to fire some attorneys. But with repeated liar Eric Holder now involved in numerous scandals, it's a whole different story:

News veteran Tom Brokaw, in an appearance said if Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft were dealing with the same scandals that Attorney General Eric Holder has been embroiled in as part of the Obama administration, “the left would be going very hard after them.”

“From a political point of view, one of the ways that you can measure the impact of all of this and the fairness of it, think if this had happened in the Bush administration with John Ashcroft as the attorney general. You know full well the Democrats and the left would be going very hard after them with these issues that are in play,” Brokaw said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.

Host David Gregory asked Brokaw whether Holder would resign given the number of scandals DOJ is caught up in, most recently investigating the phone records of AP reporters and editors as well as Fox News.
“Do you think – you’ve seen these kind of investigations before, meaning the Judiciary investigation, committee investigation of the attorney general. This could be elongated. You have this morning on ‘The New York Times’ government officials talking off the record or on background about his effectiveness. Does he stay in the job?” Gregory asked.

“Boy, I think it’s tough to see how he does at this case. It’s up to the president. What we’re seeing in the ‘New York Times’ today is that familiar Washington two-step - officially getting the endorsement of people like David Axelrod and the spokesman for the president, but at the same time, there’s another part of that two-step that is going on in which people think it would better if he left,” Brokaw said.

“It would be better for the president to get this cleaned up. He has become obviously the lightning rod for a lot of the criticism just on this panel and certainly in Republican circles,” Brokaw added.

RELATED:  Amid GOP Investigation, Justice Department Denies Eric Holder Committed Perjury

Politiks As Usual: In The News 6/3/13

Obama Strong-Armed by Clintons to Endorse Hillary for 2016, New Book Says

Criminal Minds At The IRS

Is There Hope for Hollywood?

6 Green Lies Threatening To Starve You

Viewing Cultural Collapse at Cannes

NYT: White House Wants Holder to Resign 

Issa: Carney Is a 'Paid Liar'

Film Ignores Liberace’s Statutory Rapist Status

Body of Christ vs. 'Chicago Style' Politics Re: Marriage Redefinition 
 
Rep. Michele Bachmann Says She Won't Run for Reelection in 2014

War On Women: Fox’s Megyn Kelly, Greta Boldly Slam Male Colleagues…Unlike MSNBC’s Female Stars 

Cheerios Commercial With Interracial Couple Ruined By ‘Nazi’ YouTube Commenters

Mediaite.com:

Despite it being 2013 and fears about miscegenation being largely a thing of the very distant past, the Internet’s worst trolls somehow manage to cause controversy over something as innocuous as a Cheerios commercial featuring a fictional interracial couple and their adorable daughter.

The popular cereal brand posted a new commercial to their YouTube page on Tuesday, and it has since garnered more than 265,000 views, but not without a hefty share of vitriolic, “racist” comments aimed at the company for its portrayal of a multi-race family.

Tim Nudd at AdWeek reported that the ad, developed by New York agency Saatchi & Saatchi, could easily be interpreted as a “political statement” by those who not in tune with the fact that hundreds of thousands of American couples are interracial. He noted that, as a result, the YouTube comment section “predictably has devolved into an endless flame war, with references to Nazis, ‘troglodytes’ and ‘racial genocide.’”

“At what point will an ad like this just seem normal?” Nudd asked. 

Apparently not right now — Cheerios closed down and scrubbed the comments section. Perhaps that’s for the best, so the rest of us do not have to deal with the forehead-smackery that is reading the sort of conversations Nudd’s reporting suggests existed on the page.

Yep, race not only still matters, but thanks to white, liberals fascists gay couples get less scorn from onlookeres/people than do interracial couples.

Asean Johnson, 9, Takes on Liberal Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Saves His Elementary School

AtlantaBlackStar.com:

Asean Johnson, a firebrand of a 9-year-old boy, is being credited with helping to get his school, Marcus Garvey Elementary, off the list of 50 schools that will be closed in Chicago through his forceful and articulate advocacy  and standing up to Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago School Board.
 
Asean delivered several passionate speeches on behalf of his school—including one at a meeting in April that brought a tear to the eye of Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett, who called him “an articulate, learned young man,” according to the Chicago Tribune.

But it was his impromptu speech last week at a rally, when he didn’t even know he was going to be speaking and had no remarks prepared, that has brought him to national fame, including appearances on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and MSNBC with Melissa Harris-Perry.

A video of his remarks has gone viral, with more than 150,000 views. The video shows Asean climbing onto a metal folding chair so that he can see over the lectern. He introduces himself to the crowd, then tears into Mayor Emanuel, accusing him of “not caring about our schools.”

“You should be supporting these schools, not closing them,” he says, his voice rising in anger.

After calling the closings racist, Asean strikes a more conciliatory tone when he says, “We are black, and we are proud! We are white and we are proud! No matter what the color is, no matter if you’re Asian or Chinese, it doesn’t matter. You should not be closing these schools!”

Sensing the crowd’s support, he pumps his fist in the air and leads a chant: “Education is a right; that is why we have to fight!”

“I was so amazed because he was so well composed,” Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis said, recalling how she also was brought to tears when she first heard Asean speak. “He just totally blew me away. He had on this suit, and he was so kind and so well-mannered and articulate and sweet and adorable. I thought, ‘This kid has it.’”

In a profile of Asean in the Tribune, he notes his fans are asking him to enter a life of politics, but he has another goal in mind, saying he wants to be a professional football player.

“President would be my second choice,” he said on the playground at Garvey Elementary. “And I might want to be a scientist or a lawyer. Those are going to be my two backup plans.”

RELATED: When Black Kids Want to Learn and the World Tells Them 'No'

Obama DOJ Discriminates Against Christians and Tells Employees to Verbally Affirm Homosexuality

Townhall.com:

The Department of Justice has been accused of religious intolerance and viewpoint discrimination after workers were sent an email directing them to verbally affirm homosexuality, according to a religious liberty law firm representing a DOJ whistleblower.

Liberty Counsel said DOJ employees were emailed a brochure called “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” The brochure was created as a resource from DOJ Pride, an association of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of the DOJ.

A Department of Justice spokesperson did not return calls seeking comment. Fox News also reached out to DOJ Pride for comment – but emails were not answered.

Among the directives is an order for workers to vocally affirm homosexuality.

“Don’t judge or remain silent,” the brochure read. “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

They were also told to post “DOJ Pride” stickers in their office to indicate “that it is a safe place.”

One gay DOJ employee is quoted in the directive; “Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said every American should be outraged by the DOJ orders.

“This administration is pushing the most radical, immoral agenda on the American people,” Staver said.

“Christians are not merely required to ‘shut up,’ but now they are being coerced to embrace immorality that goes against their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Liberty Counsel is representing an unidentified female DOJ worker in Washington, D.C. who received the brochure.

Staver said the woman is terrified she might lose her job unless she publicly affirms homosexuality – and she’s not the only one.

“Christians are frightened and terrified of losing their jobs,” Staver told Fox News. “You just can’t keep you head down and do your job. Now you have to become an advocate for the LGBT agenda – and if you don’t – the DOJ will consider that to be intolerant.”

Staver said the idea that Christians who might oppose homosexuality have to put up a pro-gay symbol in their office smacks of thought police.

“Under this directive, one cannot be a Christian and a manager at the Department of Justice,” he said. “How does one who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible display ‘gay pride’ stickers?”

No President has come close to openly rebelling against God and approving homosexuality that Barack Obama

RELATED: Obama's Pro-Gay Inaugural Address Slammed By American Family Association's Bryan Fischer

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/27/13

Tea Party Surges After IRS Flagging

New Terror Stance Worries Republicans

Boy Scouts' Folly: Putting Sexual Morality Up To A Vote

Closing Guantanamo  

Last Dance With Sallie Mae

Petitioners Outraged Lesbian Sex Offender Is Treated Equal Under the Law

Sen. Coburn: Holder Investigating DOJ a ‘Total Conflict of Interest’

Media Claims Pope Gave Atheists Pass into Heaven

Scientist Corrects Gullible Reporter: ‘Climate Change’ Not Causing More Tornadoes

French Gay Marriage Opponents Stage Big Paris March

Mayor's Office No Certainly For Weiner 

Obama Officials Are 'Criminalising Journalism', Says Republican Senator 

Alex Jones Responds To Maddow’s Take Down: ‘I’m Attracted To Mr. Maddow, And That Really Conflicts My…’

Mayor's office no certainty for Weiner

Mayor's office no certainty for Weiner

Idiot Televangelist Pat Robertson Blames Wife For Husband's Adultery

Guess the guy never heard of "Thou shalt not commit adultery"....what an idiot::

Pat Robertson is a feature on the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) and routinely takes calls from viewers.

One viewer recently was a woman scorned; her husband had cheated on her. 

The woman told Robertson that she had a hard time forgiving her husband's adultery and sought guidance on how to heal.

Robertson replied with advice that has spurned many Christians and non-Christians alike.

"The 'secret  is to “stop talking about the cheating. He cheated on you. Well, he’s a man. OK," Robertson told the wife.

He then went on to ask her why she fell in love with her husband in the first place. "Is he handsome?" Robertson asked, according to CNN.

Robertson followed up his comments by telling the woman that she needed to evaluate the home she had made for her husband.

“Males have a tendency to wander a little bit. And what you want to do is make a home so wonderful he doesn't want to wander," Robertson said. 

These comments prompted CBN to issue a statement.  “The intent was not to condone infidelity or to cast blame. We regret any misunderstanding."

RELATED:  Pat Robertson deserves criticism

NBC Reports Eric Holder Signed Off On Search Of Fox Reporter James Rosen’s Private Emails

Mediaite.com:

According to a report by NBC News investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on the order to issue a warrant on Fox News reporter James Rosen’s communications records. The warrant allowed federal investigators to subpoena Rosen’s private emails as well as to look into his telephone records and those of his family members. 

Rosen, who has not been charged in the case, was nonetheless the target of a search warrant that enabled Justice Department investigators to secretly seized his private emails after an FBI agent said he had “asked, solicited and encouraged … (a source) to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information.”  

“It was approved at the highest levels– and I mean the highest,” said one anonymous law enforcement official. 

“Justice officials have since said they do not intend to criminally charge Rosen, but media groups have condemned the issuance of the search warrant itself,” Isikoff writes. 

Isikoff says that his requests for comments from the Department of Justice have not been returned. 

RELATED:  What About When The President Is Republican? Why Liberals Shouldn’t Dismiss The DOJ And IRS Scandals

Obama Administration Admits Drone Strikes Have Killed Four Americans Since 2009

CNN.com:

Counterterrorism drone strikes have killed four Americans overseas since 2009, the U.S. government acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday, one day before President Barack Obama delivers a major speech on related policy.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Attorney General Eric Holder said the United States specifically targeted and killed one American citizen, al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, in 2011 in Yemen, alleging he was plotting attacks against the United States.

The letter provided new details about al-Awlaki's alleged involvement in bomb plots targeting U.S. aviation.

Holder also said the Obama administration was aware of three other Americans who had been killed in counterterrorism operations overseas.

Holder said Samir Kahn, Abdul Rahman Anwar al-Awlaki and Jude Kenan Mohammed were not targeted by the United States but he did not add more details about their deaths.

The letter represents the first U.S. admission that the four were killed in counterterror strikes even though their deaths had been reported in the media.

Abdul Rahman Anwar Al-Awlaki was the 16-year-old son of the al Qaeda cleric and was killed in Pakistan about two weeks after his father's death.

Khan produced the English-language magazine Inspire for al Qaeda's affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula, which included bomb-making instruction. He was killed alongside the elder al-Awlaki.

Mohammed, who was once on the FBI's Most Wanted list, was indicted in July 2009 as part of a North Carolina-based terror ring. He was charged with plotting to murder, kidnap or maim persons overseas and provide material support to terrorists. Mohammed was never arrested and for a time reportedly was living in Pakistan.

The Justice Department did not say when he was killed or provide any details.

Obama will deliver long-promised remarks on Thursday at National Defense University and will speak at length about the policy and legal rationale for how the United States takes action against al Qaeda and its affiliates, including the use of drones, according to a White House official.

RELATED:  Obama, drones and U.S. citizens: Don't feel bad...cuz 1 out of 4 ain't bad

IRS Official Lois Lerner To Plead The Fifth At Congressional Hearing Tomorrow

LATimes.com:

A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Vista). The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.

Since Lerner won’t answer questions, Taylor asked that she be excused from appearing, saying that would “have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.” There was no immediate word whether the committee will grant her request.

According to an inspector general’s report, Lerner found out in June 2011 that some staff in the nonprofits division in Cincinnati had used terms such as “Tea Party” and “Patriots” to select some applications for additional screening of their political activities. She ordered changes.

But neither Lerner nor anyone else at the IRS told Congress, even after repeated queries from several committees, including the House Oversight panel, about whether some groups had been singled out unfairly.

RELATED: Jay Carney Insists Obama Comfortable With Learning About IRS Scandal From News Rather Than Advisors