Drew Johnson was let go from his position as head of the Chattanooga Free Press editorial page after printing an anti-Obama editorial with the headline “Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough.” He was fired for the headline, with the official reason being that he made a last-minute headline change “outside of normal editing procedures,” but Johnson told HuffPost Live today that this was a complete lie and he was fired for “political purposes.”RELATED: Another journalist fired for sassing Obama
He explained that it’s a general practice editorial headlines get changed at the last minute, and that after he ran his anti-Obama piece we was given a warning not to do it again. Fast-forward two days, and Johnson ended up getting fired for “a policy that was never in place until Tuesday, the day after I wrote the piece.”
He said he always had freedom to write what he wanted, and even sent out this tweet shortly after his firing was made public.
He told HuffPo he suspected the firing was the result of “political pressure” and potential embarrassment over the headline, but charged that the Free Press was perfectly happy to keep his title online. The headline, as of now, has been edited to read “President Obama’s policies have harmed Chattanooga enough.”
Friday, August 02, 2013
In the Obama Era, criticism of POTUS is not allowed within the mainstream media--unless, of course, you're a liberal who thinks that Barack Obama isn't being liberal enough:
Thursday, August 01, 2013
Associated Press Vatican Reporter Cheers Pope Francis Opposing 'Poisonously Homophobic Culture' of Catholics
The media is imagining a whole new Pope that it can hug and squeeze and calls its own. In its narrative, Pope Francis is a liberal modernizer, and everything he does sweeps that caveman Pope Benedict under the rug. See AP's Vatican reporter Nicole Winfield at the end of the pope's trip to Brazil: "The Francis Revolution is underway. Not everyone is pleased."RELATED: Pope on gay priests: “If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?”
Catholics see the two popes as very similar in doctrine, if not in personality. But Winfield is going looking for traditionalist Catholics who are wailing and gnashing their teeth in defeat, for Francis is supposedly driving out the "poisonously homophobic culture" that surrounded the "dusty, doctrinaire" realm of Benedict. So much for AP's policy discouraging the use of "homophobia" in news stories!
Four months into his papacy, Francis has called on young Catholics in the trenches to take up spiritual arms to shake up a dusty, doctrinaire church that is losing faithful and relevance. [That sounds like a grammatical error, even if it isn't.]He has said women must have a greater role - not as priests, but a place in the church that recognizes that Mary is more important than any of the apostles. And he has turned the Vatican upside down, quite possibly knocking the wind out of a poisonously homophobic culture by merely uttering the word "gay" and saying: so what?
Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI, had coddled traditionalist Catholics attached to the old Latin Mass and opposed to the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council. That group greeted Francis' election with concern — and now is watching its worst fears come true. Francis has spoken out both publicly and privately against such "restoratist groups," which he accuses of being navel-gazing retrogrades out of touch with the evangelizing mission of the church in the 21st century.The Pope is hoping to evangelize the secular modern world, but AP thinks he's just trying to slap Catholics in the face to force the modern world into the church. Winfield's piece certainly proves AP has swept away any "retrograde" notion of a just-the-facts wire service. This purple prose reads just like a column for their client The Huffington Post.
The new pope did make waves by insisting the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate should not use the traditional Latin Mass. But that move could be interpreted in other ways than as a campaign against "navel-gazing retrogrades." For example, as a Jesuit, he could be trying to shake up this religious order without trying to crush the previous pope's welcoming of the old Latin rite in every church.
Winfield argues Pope Francis is crusading against "restoratist groups," but wherever you search for that term, it only turns up Winfield's article. It seems impossible to find a quote where the Pope (or anyone else outside AP) uses that term. It must just be that imaginary Pope the media adore.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Of course, her revealing statement will get little attention from the Godless, far-Left press because A) Monifah, despite being a longtime artist, had at best one minor hit during her career and B) it dispels the Gay Mafia's position/myth which states that homosexuals are "born that way" (despite scientist after scientist having failed to come up with the ever elusive "gay gene"):
LGBT people have some of the highest rates of depression and substance abuse. Do you think any of that factored into your issues?No, actually that was probably the least of them. It was more based in the things I had gone through as a child. I had a lot of deaths of people close to me. My sexuality wasn't a big issue for me. There are a lot of gay people in my family, so the ice was broken. My brother, God rest his soul, whom I was very close to and helped raised me, he was 12 years older than me, his name was Kevin Carter. He was a gay man, and I felt like, whatever, it was so prevalent on my mind that it wasn't a huge deal for me exploring my feelings for women. I didn't feel frightful in that area, any resistance, I didn't experience any of that. That definitely wasn't the cause.You haven't made your same-sex relationships a secret. When was your first one?Exploring my affinity towards women, actually it's so funny. Terez and I laugh because we have this running joke. We're like, "Oh! Now I understand why I liked Kristy McNichol!" You know? I didn't understand what it was. It wasn't anything sexual. I just thought they were cool. There's so many people, retrospectively, it's like wow! It's a big joke. I had a bad relationship with this older guy who was real controlling. After that I thought, I'm going to the girls' club, I'm going to meet a woman, I'm going to date a woman. I'm going to find a woman. I just made a conscious decision.That happens a lot — why do you think that is?I don't know! [Laughs] I mean, I really don't know. It wasn't like I hated men or anything. I just thought I'm going to give that a break, because I've never experienced a realtionship with a woman, and I was curious. I thought it would be a good way to give the guys a break. I was going to live my life, I was just going to be me.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
But not the main charge of "aiding the enemy"....unbelievable?!? Thankfully he'll still most likely get life behind bars:
Pfc. Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army soldier implicated in the largest release of documents relating to national security in the history of the country, was found not guilty of the charge of aiding the enemy in a military court on Tuesday. He has, however, been found guilty on 15 counts of releasing classified documents.RELATED: Bradley Manning: Poster Boy For ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
The 25-year-old army private was accused of aiding the enemy by helping Julian Assange’s government transparency advocacy group Wikileaks obtain classified documents relating to American national security starting in late 2009. Manning had insisted, however, that he did not begin facilitating leaks until February, 2010.
A CBS News report reveals that Manning could face a life sentence for his role in the release of classified documents. He was convicted of five counts relating to espionage, and had already admitted to his guilt in 10 charges in connection with the release of those documents.
Manning stands accused of federal espionage, theft, and computer fraud for his role in releasing roughly 700,000 battlefield reports, diplomatic cables, and pieces of video footage to the controversial organization, which subsequently published much of the material on its website. The unauthorized disclosure represented the largest leak of classified material in American History.Manning asked for a military judge instead of a jury to hear his case. The military prosecutor in this case sought to prove that Manning was aware that the documents he released would benefit America’s enemies, specifically Al Qaeda.