Media Research Center

MRC: 'The World's Gayest High School' on Glee Is an Insult to William McKinley

It is the job of Andrew Collins of the right-wing Media Research Center to watch shows like Glee and The New Normal, and then complain about them being too gay.

In his latest post, Collins attacks an episode of Glee for having a “particularly large dose of gay” and says that the high school is an insult to its namesake, President William McKinley, as it is “The World’s Gayest High School.”

“So many characters play for the other team it's hard to believe that there’ll be any future generations of McKinley High students to mock the Bible and cheer on transgendered [sic] performers,” Collins writes.

He goes on to lament that Kurt’s father stressed “the seriousness and permanence of marriage” when he told Blaine, Kurt’s off-and-on boyfriend, that he shouldn’t ask Kurt to marry him…because “his refusal builds the legitimacy of gay marriage even more.”

Pity William McKinley. Our 25th president was a Civil War hero who successfully prosecuted the Spanish-American War and presided over a booming economy. For his trouble, he was assassinated. Adding insult to injury, he’s the namesake of The World’s Gayest High School.

It’s no secret that “Glee” frequently and flamboyantly pushes a gay agenda. So many characters play for the other team it's hard to believe that there’ll be any future generations of McKinley High students to mock the Bible and cheer on transgendered [sic] performers. But as this season prepares to wrap up this week, things are heating up on "Glee." Last week’s episode featured a particularly large dose of gay.



And finally, in the most overt display of all, Blaine asks Kurt’s father for his son’s hand in marriage. His father is all in favor of the institution, those who support gay marriage are on the right side of history, he says. However, he says no because, like most parents these days, he believes high school is a bit too young for someone to be proposing. If anything, his refusal builds the legitimacy of gay marriage even more because he emphasizes the seriousness and permanence of marriage.

Gainor: Marriage Equality Advocates Will 'Undermine Our Entire Country and Everything That Made Us Free'

Media Research Center spokesman Dain Gainor, who last week argued that the media is engaging in “full-blown fascist propaganda” tactics to promote marriage equality, in a recent interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network maintained that gay rights advocates have America and freedom in their crosshairs.

After host Efrem Graham said that “now it’s Christians who stand up to traditional marriage who are actually the ones being discriminated against,” Gainor readily agreed: “That’s absolutely true and this is just the beginning.”

Gainor asserted that the left will move to promote polygamy as “the advocacy words they use for gay marriage, you could easily just replace just that and use it as advocacy for polygamy or who knows what.”

“The left wants a no holds barred, nothing is wrong morality,” Gainor asserted, “that is going to undermine our entire country and everything that made us free.”

Watch:

MRC's Gainor: Media Using 'Full-Blown Fascist Propaganda' to Promote Gay Rights

Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center is very, very, very angry at the media’s coverage of the Supreme Court’s marriage cases. In fact, he is so angry that he is accusing the media of pushing “full-blown fascist propaganda.”

After calling the comedy The New Normal a “propaganda show,” Gainor told the American Family Association’s news service that the media “are going to have almost no voices [from the other side] because they don’t believe that anybody should have a right to think otherwise.”

Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture for MRC, said from the Post to the big three broadcast networks, the mainstream media is actively lobbying the American public.

“They even talk about the media component, how the media have propagandized our ‘media culture,’ in the words of [NBC news anchor] Brian Williams,” notes Gainor. “So they talk about it and they show Ellen DeGeneres, they show Modern Family clips, they show Will & Grace. They show a very tiny snippet The New Normal, which conveniently is NBC’s propaganda show.”



And Gainor tells American Family News that NBC has been the biggest violator of pushing its own gay agenda, citing its report that he says was “filled with images of TV’s gay icons.”

“That’s their strategy,” he remarks. “They’re going to have almost no voices [from the other side] because they don’t believe that anybody should have a right to think otherwise. It’s beyond bias; it’s actually I would even say beyond censorship. It is full-blown fascist propaganda.”

The MRC spokesman says while the Supreme Court may not be able to come to an agreement, the elite media has determined the issue to already be decided.

MRC's Gainor Says 'Complete and Utter Scumbag' Jon Stewart Is Leading the War on Christmas

The Media Research Center’s professional hyperventilator Dan Gainor appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to warn conservatives that they are losing ground in the “War on Christmas” as the media and liberals have teamed up to stop Christmas celebrations everywhere! He channeled Bryan Fischer in arguing that the “War on Christmas” is really a “war on Christ” and part of the left’s evil plot to “eradicate” and “destroy” religion.

Gainor: If you are a person of faith in this country, any faith unless it’s Islam, the media are out to get you. They are particularly after Christianity, Judaism as well, any sort of traditional values religion, they don’t want your values, they don’t want your faith on TV, they don’t want it in the media and the left is out to eradicate it.



Mefferd: How much worse would you say that it is getting, this War on Christmas, compared with previous years? How much is it ramped up?

Gainor: I think it’s ramped up a lot. I think the left smells blood in the water and they have all year. This is not just a War on Christmas, that’s the point that everyone listening needs to understand, this is a war on faith, this is a war on Christians, this is a war on Christ. So when we saw the Chick-fil-A war, that was just one battle, it wasn’t a Chick-fil-A war, it was just one battle in a greater war where if you come out and express belief in traditional values, particularly traditional faith, the media and the left will seek to destroy you.

Gainor called The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart a “complete and utter scumbag” over a manger scene joke and falsely claimed he never makes jokes about Islam, adding that no one should make jokes about Islam either. In fact, Gainor’s own group is dedicated to attacking positive portrayal of Islam and negative stories on Islamophobia in the media.

Ironically after attacking people who boycotted Chick-fil-A, he called on people to “systematically target” broadcasters and advertisers of programs like The Daily Show and to boycott the Girl Scouts because it is “destroying young women” and the Salvation Army, purportedly for not saying “Merry Christmas.” If that is the Salvation Army’s greatest offense, then Gainor and Mefferd should join the Chick-fil-A boycott, as the fast food chain only uses the phrase “Happy Holidays” as well.

Gainor: The Huffington Post today, I think there is the ’27 Gayest Christmas Songs,’ they are all trying to undermine the holiday to make it their own lefty craziness. Then they say, ‘well you know it’s still Christmas.’ You’ve got Jon Stewart—let’s face it, Jon Stewart is very funny but he is also a complete and utter scumbag. He did a manger scene and this could be delicate to talk about on radio and he did this on TV, I’m trying to dance around this this being radio, but he did a manger scene that was displayed in the nether regions of a naked female, and he got wildly abused for this. Well you know Jon Stewart doesn’t celebrate Christmas so he doesn’t care, it’s not seen as a religious offense.

Mefferd: But there’s not that respect for other people’s religious beliefs.

Gainor: You don’t see him making fun of Ramadan the same way and he shouldn’t and I like to think I don’t. I have a neighbor who is Muslim, I respect him, he’s frankly one of my neighbors I get along with best. We shouldn’t be calling for them to start attacking other religions too. No what we should be saying is you have to have some respect here and if you don’t, we’re going to systematically target your broadcast outlets, we’re going to target your advertisers and we’re going to retaliate. That’s what I meant about Salvation Army, if a Christian organization is afraid to say ‘Merry Christmas’ then I’m done with them with my holiday money and I love giving to Salvation Army. But look I’ve defunded the Girl Scouts because as much as I love the cookies and I do, they are a lefty organization that is destroying young women in America now and I will not give them a penny. Even though one of my coworker’s has a daughter in Girl Scouts and he no longer can successfully sell cookies in our office.

Bozell: Obama must Yield to House Republicans because 'We Have a Larger Vote than he Received'

Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show to discuss the demands he made alongside other conservative activists, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, Alfred Regnery, Richard Viguerie, Jeff Bell and Jenny Beth Martin, for Republican leaders in Congress to step down after their election defeats. According to Bozell and others, the GOP suffered humiliating losses because the party wasn’t conservative enough. He told Mefferd that figures calling on House Speaker John Boehner to compromise with President Obama are really asking Republicans to “surrender our principles” and that Obama should be the one who should succumb to the Republican position. “Why isn’t he compromising with us?” Bozell asked, “We have a larger vote than he received.”

Listen:

We have to surrender our principles, what they’re saying is: John Boehner, surrender that which got you elected, that which brought you to Washington, the beliefs of the people who voted you in, surrender them. No, why not say, wait a minute, we’re the ‘people’s House,’ we are on par with the President of the United States according to the Constitution, why isn’t he compromising with us? We have a larger vote than he received. He has no mandate on this, he got eight million votes less than he got last time.

Unfortunately for Bozell, President Obama received over 62,608,181 votes while just 53,402,643 votes were cast for Republican House candidates. In fact, Democratic House candidates garnered 53,952,240 votes, about a half a million more votes than their Republican counterparts, who heavily benefited from gerrymandering.

Mefferd: ESPN and Sports Reporters Push Liberal Ideology

On yesterday’s edition of The Janet Mefferd Show, the host and her guest, Matt Philbin of the Media Research Center, took aim at an unlikely vector of liberal ideals: the world of sports. Reflecting on an MRC report, Mefferd said that ESPN and other sports broadcasters are “using their sports platforms really to push this liberal economic and social ideology.” Philbin asserted ESPN hires people with a “liberal pedigree” and its website includes content that is in “support of the gay agenda.”

Philbin held up liberal commentator Keith Olbermann, who previously worked at ESPN, as proof of the network’s liberal bias. He conveniently ignored the fact that Texas Republican senate candidate Craig James is also a former ESPN broadcaster and ESPN’s chairman and vice president are both Romney donors.

Mefferd: If you are a big sports nut you’re noticing also that from time to time you’ll see a little bit of political material creep in on the sidelines and that’s really the intent of a lot of people on the left, they want to politicize the games, but it’s true of sports in general, and if you follow sports TV at all, ESPN, some of those other sports shows, you’ll see this, and in fact, the Culture and Media Institute of the Media Research Center has put together a report all about this documenting the trend of commentators and sportscasters using their sports platforms to really push this liberal, economic, and social ideology. Matt Philbin is with us, managing editor of the Media Research Center. So Matt, let’s talk about sports in general and what you guys noted looking at channels like ESPN or some of these other sports shows, where do you see this liberal ideology kind of creeping in?

Philbin: Well, you can see it all over the place, and uh, I would just, uh, just a reminder, that, uh, Keith Olbermann came from ESPN. Before he went to MSNBC, he came from SportsCenter which he actually helped create, I believe, uh, so, ESPN has a long liberal ESPN and you can see that in a lot of its programming. And you can see that on its website as well. Its website has always, for years now, has featured commentary in support of the gay agenda.

Philbin later maintained that sports journalists, like other journalists, have “an antipathy toward conservatives and toward traditional Americans.” The two also took umbrage in particular to the sports network’s supposedly cozy relationship with President Obama: Mefferd was dismayed that ESPN is helping the President “show his softer side” by broadcasting his NCAA bracket selection.

Of course, President Bush, a former baseball franchise owner, previously appeared on ESPN to talk fishing and baseball.

Philbin: They’re just pulling from the same sort of pool of people as the mainstream media is, sort of, uh, habitually liberal journalists who really have an antipathy towards conservative and toward traditional Americans.

Mefferd: What about ESPN and its relationship with President Obama, because they’ve sort of fawned over him as well, haven’t they?

Philbin: Oh, They think he’s terrific.

Mefferd: Sports picks and everything.

Philbin: Yes, you know, oh, They’ve had him on to pick his, uh, brackets in the NCAA tournament. They’ve had him speak about reforming college football’s BCS system. Things that really, a President doesn’t have much interest, or shouldn’t have much interest in talking about.

Mefferd: Well, he wants to be a man of the people I guess. Show his softer side, I guess. “They’re calling me a socialist too much, quick, ESPN, let me do my March Madness picks!

Philbin: That’s right, I’m, just like them.

Mefferd: Just like them. 

Parshall and Gainor Seem to Believe Conservatives Don't Like Boycotts

Yesterday during In The Market, Dan Gainor of the right-wing Media Research Center and host Janet Parshall are the latest conservative activists to deny their movement’s history of supporting boycotts in order to attack gay rights groups protesting Chick-fil-A, agreeing that “conservatives generally are against boycotts” while freedom-hating liberals just can’t help themselves:

Gainor: This is a line in the sand for everybody listening, for every American right now: what country do we want to have, do we want to have people just say ‘well I don’t like what you believe so we’re going to destroy your business’?

Parshall: Exactly. Dan let me pick up on that point because I think it’s a great one. Paradoxically, in the midst of this brouhaha with Chick-fil-A comes the announcement that Amazon.com CEO and his wife give $2.5 million to Washington state for the same-sex marriage battle going on there. I tell you what, I get an awful lot of press releases all day long and I’m still waiting, I have yet to hear a Christian group that’s saying we’re going to boycott Amazon.com because their founder and CEO has decided to make a multimillion dollar contribution to battle against something that I happen to hold dear and believe in. So this tactic, unfortunately, seems to be one sided, one the one hand I guess I can understand it, and on the other hand, it’s just not the way Christians behave in the marketplace.

Gainor: Conservatives generally are against boycotts. We’ll boycott occasionally for something that’s really extreme. But we accept that people have different values and different opinions, that’s called democracy, we tend to like that and like our Constitution and like our freedom of speech.

Parshall: I couldn’t agree more.

Huh, that’s odd since the National Organization for Marriage is boycotting Starbucks and General Mills, and the American Family Association and the Catholic League are boycotting countless companies. In fact, the AFA’s One Million Moms has said “so long Amazon.”

Concerned Women for America, Parshall’s former employer which recently urged shoppers to stop shopping at Macy’s and once endorsed a boycott of Disney, just today sent an email to members warning them about shopping at…Amazon.com! While they claimed that the group “does not participate in boycotts,” they suggested members shop at their website instead of Amazon.com due to their CEO’s pro-gay rights contribution:

Now Amazon.com Founder and President Jeff Bezos is wading into the moral morass by offering 2.5 million investor dollars (unlike Amazon.com, Chick-fil-A is privately owned) to same-sex "marriage" advocates in Washington state in retaliation for the Cathy's religious stance. (We're also taking it personally, as Maureen Richardson, State Director for CWA of Washington, has fought like a lioness against the efforts of liberal legislators to redefine marriage.)

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is supporting the Chick-fil-A Day of Appreciation on August 1, 2012, in defense of a Christian family that is being absolutely excoriated by the mainstream media, public officials, private companies, and irate liberals for honoring their faith.

While CWA does not participate in boycotts, we understand that the brazen, politically correct move of Amazon.com's founder and president may trouble some of our members and supporters. If you feel uneasy shopping at Amazon.com, we would like to take this opportunity to remind you that our own store, www.shopcwfa.org, carries over 170,000 Christian titles, and part of every purchase goes back to CWA so we can continue to be your voice on Capitol Hill and in the culture.

Gainor’s MRC promoted boycotts against McDonalds and Ford that were organized by anti-gay groups, denouncing journalists for not giving them enough attention, and MRC head Brent Bozell lauded the Southern Baptists Convention’s boycott against Disney as the “correct” decision:

The Mouse answered with a spit in the face. The Disney-owned production company Touchstone, along with Disney-owned ABC television, brought America the most hyped, high-profile homosexual happening in entertainment history: "Ellen." To no one's surprise, on June 18 the 1997 SBC overwhelmingly voted to undertake an all-out boycott of Disney and its subsidiaries.

Bozell also said that boycotts are an important tool for pressure groups and commended groups like CWA for joining the cause:

It certainly grew on August 27 when Dr. James Dobson announced that his organization, Focus on the Family, would join the SBC, the Catholic League, Concerned Women for America (CWA), the American Family Association (AFA), and several smaller groups. The SBC claims 16 million members; Focus on the Family four million; the Catholic League, the AFA, and CWA several hundred thousand each. Add those numbers up and you've got an awful lot of parents whose entertainment dollars have bought a lot of Disney products for their children.



A Disney executive has said his company thinks of the boycott as analogous to "a gnat on an elephant." But remember this: gnats are persistent, and if you've ever been plagued by a cloud of them, you know you'll do almost anything to make them leave you alone. If the boycott reaches gnat-cloud proportions - which it probably will given the tenacity of the boycott's leaders - Michael Eisner, et al, will want to shoo it away, and fast. The good news is that Disney can do so simply by returning to the family-friendly product that won it a special place in American cultural history.

But forget all that, conservatives don’t boycott!

MRC Upset Dan Savage Fields Questions from LGBT Students

The Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute has been tracking Savage U, the MTV show where Dan Savage offers sex and relationship advice to inquiring students, and has not liked what it has seen. It seems that the biggest complaint of writer Taylor Hughes is that Savage speaks directly and candidly about sex without pushing the abstinence-only-until-marriage message, but Hughes appears to be especially upset that Savage has “used the show to push the gay agenda.” How so? By having regularly “featured people dealing with LGBT issues, reinforcing in its own little way the myth that gays make up more than a tiny percent of the population.” Disturbed that Savage “often fields questions from gay or lesbian people during the show’s Q & A session,” Hughes goes on to label Savage a “Neanderthal” who is “barbaric and uncivilized”:

Savage has also used the show to push the gay agenda, of course. The show regularly has featured people dealing with LGBT issues, reinforcing in its own little way the myth that gays make up more than a tiny percent of the population. (It’s an effective tactic. About half of all Americans believe nearly 25 percent of the population is gay.) Savage interviewed a lesbian who is now becoming attracted to men, a man who used to date women but now is looking to date men, and a transgendered person in the midst of becoming a woman. He often fields questions from gay or lesbian people during the show’s Q & A session.



Surely his most recent attack on Republicans will only further solidify his role in the liberal media. On Monday, June 25, he attacked gay Republicans in an article titled “On Booze, Meth, Suicide ... and GOProud” stating, “like gay meth addicts who aren't satisfied harming only themselves, the boys at GOProud aren't satisfied harming only themselves. They want to harm other gay people—they want to harm all gay people—by getting Mitt Romney elected.”

Dan Savage is what his name indicates, barbaric and uncivilized, yet the liberal media accepts and endorses him because he is a cultural progressive. MTV and its ilk would give a Neanderthal a show about table etiquette, provided he hated conservatives enough.

Testing Media Research Center Spokesman's Advice to Pastors on how to discuss Gay Rights

Media Research Center’s Tim Graham talked to Janet Mefferd yesterday where he claimed that opponents of same-sex marriage can’t get on TV, a point which he then undercut when he admitted that anti-gay activists like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Harry Jackson actually made the rounds on TV to respond to President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality. Graham called Obama’s announcement a “tragic,” “dark” and “depressing moment” for America, and declared that he “would like to see what would happen” if pastors like Jackson could speak about same-sex marriage during interviews just as “he does at his church”:

Graham: I think for a lot of people Obama saying, ‘I think this should be the way it is in America,’ was really a tragic moment for the country, it was a very dark moment, a very depressing moment. Those people, like me, who have that opinion, try getting on television!

Mefferd: That’s what I was going to ask you, as you were surveying the landscape of the media over the weekend and since the President made this stand on his new evolution, which was really an old evolution that he brought out again, did you see many conservatives or many people who were in favor only of traditional marriage getting a say so on TV?

Graham: A little bit, I mean the most prominent one of course has been Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and he has made the rounds a bit, I think some of the best things he said is again, in a political context they’re not really having a moral discussion, the media wants to discuss this in political terms. I think the hard thing for people to do, I saw Bishop Harry Jackson on News Hour on PBS, he doesn’t really do in the studio what he does at his church. He doesn’t reach for the Bible, he doesn’t make a testimony, I think people get intimidated saying ‘I’m here in this secular place and I’m going to say secular things.’ I just wonder, I would like to see what would happen, if you try to engage these people, because you have to explain this is where the opposition comes, it’s from a religious, traditional point of view.

Graham may be on to something, as TV interviews might be much more candid and exhilarating if Harry Jackson told the hosts at PBS or MSNBC that demonic forces, specifically the Queen of Heaven, are responsible for gay rights, just as he preaches in church:

Or if Perkins went on CNN or Fox News and said gays are “held captive by The Enemy”:

Conservative 'Pro-Family' Groups Silent on Rush Limbaugh's Sexist Outbursts

The Media Research Center criticized everyone from Perez Hilton and Gossip Girl to the cast of Jersey Shore for using the word “slut,” but after right-wing talk show host tagged law student and women’s rights advocate Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute,” the group that claims to stand up for “people and institutions that hold traditional values” has repeatedly come to Limbaugh’s defense. MRC’s Scott Whitlock said NBC’s depiction of Limbaugh’s sexist remarks as “ugly” represented “a left-wing attack” and Brent Baker dubbed coverage of Limbaugh’s rant a “left-wing effort to impugn and silence Rush Limbaugh.” The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer and Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber even tweeted in defense of Limbaugh, Barber even saying that Limbaugh “showed class.”

Apparently, the word “slut” is only acceptable when it is used by a right-wing ally.

Concerned Women for America, which describes itself as committed to promoting “decency” in the media, has been completely silent about Limbaugh’s tirade. But the group is happy to post a statement regarding the talk show host’s praise for CWA, along with claims about the supposedly sexist treatment of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin by the media.

Focus on the Family considers the word “slut” a profanity and blamed “hip-hop/rap culture” for making it “become acceptable and even in vogue to be called a ‘slut,’” and urged people to stop buying music with words like “slut” that “objectify women.” But the organization still hasn’t commented on Limbaugh’s misogynist rants. In 2009 the group defended Limbaugh with a video, “When the liberals came for Rush.”

While these so-called “pro-family” organizations love to claim that they promote decency and values on the airwaves, they are either unwilling or uninterested in criticizing a prominent conservative who spent four days straight calling a student a “slut” on national radio

Media Research Center Demands Media Promote Belief that 'Someone Can Choose Their Sexuality'

Tim Graham, the Media Research Center’s Director of Media Analysis, appeared on Truth in Action Ministries’ flagship radio program Truth that Transforms today, where along with host Carmen Pate, he railed against the media for not giving more attention to “ex-gay” activists or promoting the “idea that someone can change, that someone can choose their sexuality.” Later in the interview, he twisted the recent statements of actress Cynthia Nixon, who said that while the way she identifies herself is a choice her sexual orientation is bisexual. Graham also criticized Glee and The Voice for “promoting the gay lifestyle” and accused the media of trying to “constantly exclude the conservative view on marriage,” which is par for the course for the MRC, which has a long record of attacking “gay propaganda” on shows like Glee and defending “reparative” therapy.

Pate: I think about the debate on marriage when you see the major news media talk about the issue they only present one side, they very seldom if ever talk to former homosexuals, people who left the lifestyle who are now enjoying heterosexual marriage. You don’t hear that side of it, you only hear one side, so that leaves the audience thinking there is no other side and that does change opinions over a time period when the truth is silenced.

Graham: I think the narrative they’ve tried to establish, and one of the reasons why they constantly exclude the conservative view on marriage, is that they want to present this as all historically inevitable, basically it’s already happened, let’s move on, why are we even discussing this anymore, it’s all done, there’s no need for debate, it’s over. What’s really intriguing, as long as we’re talking about the broadcast networks, is most of the news media coverage of this issue now will say, of course this is going to happen because you can see it on Glee, you can see it last night on The Voice, you can see it on all these television programs that are promoting the gay lifestyle. They’re using Hollywood and New York promoting these things as a reason for why this is going to happen and there’s no reason, just surrender, there is no way this is going to lose. It’s not just bias, it really becomes intimidation, you better come around to this point of view. And you’re absolutely right, one of the things that is so wildly controversial that you can’t even discuss it on television is the idea that someone can change, that someone can choose their sexuality.

Media Research Center Intensifies Campaign Against Glee

The Media Research Center is once again attacking the show Glee for its portrayal of gay and bisexual characters. The MRC’s Paul Wilson, writing for the organization’s Culture and Media Institute, appears to consider any depiction of the show’s characters that doesn’t kowtow to the MRC’s anti-gay sensibilities to somehow be an attack on Christianity and the Bible, accusing Glee of leading a “campaign against traditional sexual morality” and “mocking the Bible.” He lamented that in the last episode of Glee the “gay lifestyle was pushed on viewers” and said the show is fully committed to “pushing homosexual propaganda on its viewers”:

The TV musical “Glee” has a long history of pushing the envelope on sexual matters and promoting the homosexual lifestyle. The Valentine’s Day episode of Glee, titled “Heart,” marked a new low in Glee’s campaign against traditional sexual morality, by mocking the Bible.

A lesbian student, Santana asked a group of Christians called the “God Squad” to sing for her girlfriend as part of a “singing telegram” performance. The idea didn’t sit well with a new homeschooled student, who conveniently fit all the stereotypes liberals have of homeschoolers (the unsocialized, barefoot son of a Bible salesman who listens to talk radio but doesn’t own a TV). His reluctance sparked a conversation among the so-called “God Squad” about the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.

The students of the “God Squad” claimed to respect his decision – and then mocked the Bible’s relevance on homosexuality.



The episode was full of “Glee’s” usual instances where the gay lifestyle was pushed on viewers, featuring lesbian kissing in the hallways and a student coming out that he was gay. Lesbian cheerleader Santana complained: “All I want to be able to do is kiss my girlfriend, but I guess no one can see that, because there’s such an insane double standard at this school.”

In a singularly ironic way, she’s right. There is an insane double standard at that school – in favor of the homosexual lifestyle.

By mocking the Bible, “Glee” has gone further down the rabbit hole in pushing homosexual propaganda on its viewers.

CNSNews Discovers More Yuletide Gays at the Smithsonian

CNSNews’ Penny Starr caused an uproar in 2010 when she published a story titled, “Smithsonian Christmas-Season Exhibit Features Ant-Covered Jesus, Naked Brothers Kissing, Genitalia, and Ellen DeGeneres Grabbing Her Breasts.” Starr’s story, a breathless review of a groundbreaking National Portrait Gallery exhibit on the gay and lesbian experience in American art, started a textbook case of the right-wing controversy machine, ultimately resulting in the Smithsonian’s removal of a work from the exhibit.

Apparently encouraged by last Christmas’s triumph, Starr is at it again. Her new target: a National Portrait Gallery exhibit on Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas. That the Smithsonian would twice in a row acknowledge the existence of gay people during the winter months is too much for Starr:

For the second year in a row, the federally funded National Portrait Gallery (NPG), a part of the Smithsonian Institution, held an exposition during the Christmas season focused on the homosexual lifestyle.


“Seeing Gertrude Stein: Five Stories,” an exhibition appearing at the NPG from Oct. 14, 2011 through Jan. 22, 2012, focuses on lesbian activist and writer Gertrude Stein.


The exhibit, set up in five rooms at the taxpayer-funded museum, highlights Stein’s lesbian relationship with Alice B. Toklas and Stein’s “second family” of homosexual men, some of whom collaborated with Stein on various projects.


On the wall at the entrance to the exhibit, Stein is described as “one of America’s most famous writers.” It gives brief descriptions of each of the five stories, including “Domestic Stein,” which “looks at the lesbian partnership of Stein and Alice B. Toklas, focusing on their distinctive dress, home décor, hospitality, food and pets.” The “Art of Friendship,” the introduction says, “explores Stein's relationships and collaborations after World War I with the neoromantics, a circle of international artists who were young, male, and gay.”
 

Bozell Names Lady Gaga and Conan O'Brien 'Biggest Losers' for Marrying Gay Couples

Media Research Center president Brent Bozell has declared Lady Gaga and Conan O’Brien the two biggest “losers” of the year for their “eagerness to shred traditional values.” O’Brien married an openly gay staffer on his show to his partner, and Lady Gaga announced that she wants to become an ordained minister in order to marry one of her close friends to her partner. “Lady Gaga is as unattractive, in every sense of the word, as her name is stupid,” Bozell said, and he called O’Brien’s on-air marriage of two men “a disgusting scene.” The conservative activist went on to call Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s hit play “The Book of Mormon” a “ghastly show” and he also named Glee, which he once referred to as “gay propaganda,” another “loser” of the year:

The depravity of our popular culture and our eagerness to shred traditional values manifests itself every day. Lady Gaga, the top-earning woman in the music business and deemed by ABCs Barbara Walters to be one of the "most fascinating people," has a new vocation in mind. She's announced she wants to become an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church so she can marry two gay male friends.

Lady Gaga is as unattractive, in every sense of the word, as her name is stupid. She welcomed Easter with a single called "Judas" ("I'm still in love with Judas, baby.") and arrives at Christmas as Reverend Gaga. This is the same "instant online ordination" that TBS late-night host Conan O'Brien used in November in a disgusting scene to "marry" two gay males live on his television show. Gaga and Conan are two of the real cultural losers of 2011. Here are some other winners and losers:

Loser: "The Book of Mormon," the ghastly hit Broadway musical from the perpetually immature makers of "South Park." Most media outlets celebrated it as "brilliant" -- so spouted so-called drama critic Jake Tapper on ABC. But Wall Street Journal critic Terry Teachout put it best. "It's flabby, amateurish and very, very safe." Safe? Trashing the Mormons? Yes. "Making fun of Mormons in front of a Broadway crowd is like shooting trout in a demitasse cup...on the subject of imitation courage, let it be duly noted that if the title of this show were 'The Quran,' it wouldn't have opened."



Loser: The Fox show "Glee," which seems to be losing all its popularity in only its third season. After its 3-D concert movie came in 123rd for the year (with a gross of less than $12 million, about 12 percent of the take of the "The Lion King" remake), its third season lowlight was a preachy episode about the loathsome and overrated idea of virginity in these modern, enlightened times.

But the real loser might be Bozell himself, who last night on Fox News criticized Chris Matthews for joking that Newt Gingrich looked like a “car bomber” by saying that, “How long do you think Sean Hannity’s show would last if four times in one sentence he made a comment about the president of the United States and said that he looked like a skinny ghetto crackhead — which by the way, you might want to say that Barack Obama does!”

Perhaps the Media is Just Covering What Republicans are Talking About

Last week, the Culture and Media Institute released a report entitled "Baptism by Fire" which complained that media outlets were covering the faith issues as they relate to the Republican primary battle in a different manner then it was covered during the Democratic primary battle in 2008:

With the 2012 elections less than a year away, the liberal media are attacking President Obama's potential opponents on a number of fronts, but especially on religion.

ABC, CBS and NBC have used religion in two ways, either painting the field of GOP primary challengers as a God Squad of religious zealots or playing up differences in their faith. Whether they're letting viewers know that "Rick Perry's gonna have to answer some questions about the people" he prays with, fretting that God "told Michele Bachmann," to enter politics, or devoting no less than 40 segments to the question of whether Mormonism is "a cult" or if "Mitt Romney is a Christian," the networks have repeatedly used faith against the GOP field.

Media preoccupation with the GOP candidates' faith is the exact opposite of how they covered (or didn't) candidate Obama's 20-year attendance at the church of a racist, anti-American pastor who subscribed to "black liberation theology," or Obama's half-Muslim heritage.

The Media Research Center's Culture and Media Institute studied network news reporting on the GOP candidates and religion from Jan. 1-Oct. 31, 2011, and compared it to coverage of the Democratic presidential primary candidates over the same period in 2007. The discrepancy, in both the amount and tone of the coverage, was striking. Network reporters, so disinterested in the beliefs of Obama and his rivals for the 2008 nomination, took every opportunity to inject religion into their coverage of the GOP field.

The obvious response to this allegation would be to point out that the media probably writes a lot more about the faith of Republican candidates because Republicans candidates regularly use their faith as part of their campaigns.

After all, Rick Perry just released two ads about his faith and organized a massive public prayer rally earlier this year, while Michele Bachmann was just on James Dobson's radio program talking about the importance of a "biblical worldview."  For his part, Newt Gingrich regularly uses his faith as part of his campaign while Mitt Romeny's Mormonism continues to be an issue to various Religious Right activists.  In fact, just last month, most of the Republican contenders gathered for a "Thanksgiving Family Forum" hosted by several Religious Right groups where they spent several hours discussing nothing but their faith.

So the reason the press writes more about the faith of Republican candidates probably has a lot to do with the fact that Republican candidates make faith a large part of their campaigns ... but admitting that would pretty much undermine the entire premise of CMI's report, which is why, when CMI's Matt Philbin was on The Janet Mefferd Program yesterday and she raised this rather obvious point, he struggled to explain that it was still a double standard because Democrats are "supposedly" just as religious as Republicans:

Mefferd: Now I wonder if that fact that you have a number of GOP hopefuls who are very, you know, open about their faith - you have Michele Bachmann, you have Rick Perry, you have Herman Cain (you have Herman Cain,) you have Mitt Romney - could it be construed that faith is more of an issue in this election because they are more candidates talking about it?

Philbin: Well, in any GOP primary battle, they do talk about it more, certainly, then Democrats do. In Iowa, they're going to evangelical conservatives and they certainly are not going to be reticent about their faith. But the problem is that the Democrats are, supposedly, just as religious, they have a need to appeal to almost the very same people, so for the networks not to cover the religion of the Democrats while they are covering the religion of the Republicans is a strange double standard.

One of CMI's recommendations in this report is that "reporters should refrain from injecting religion where it doesn't belong" ... but apparently reporters should also be writing a lot about the faith views of Democratic candidates even if those views tend not to play nearly as prominent a role in their campaigns as compared to Republicans. 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious