Earlier this week National Horizon, an Arizona-based Super PAC, announced it would be running ads in New York supporting GOP Sen. candidate Wendy Long. The ad can be seen below.
The new video attacks liberal Kirsten Gillibrand’s unwavering support of President Obama in his battle with the Catholic church and their leaders. The battle stems from Obama’s attack on religious freedom, specifically regarding the healthcare overhaul’s inclusion of a contraception mandate.
The line has been drawn. Wendy Long supports religious freedom. Kirsten Gillibrand supports government controls that force the Catholic church to go against it’s teachings.
Where do you stand?
Here is the transcript of the ad:
“Obamacare demands people of faith compromise on core beliefs. The issue isn’t abortion, it’s religious freedom – what Cardinal Dolan calls a radical intrusion into a church’s ability to teach, serve and sanctify its own.”
“Sadly, Kirsten Gillibrand stands with Barack Obama against over 400 Catholic leaders who oppose this attack on religious freedom. It’s time for a senator who shares your values: Wendy Long.”
An unprecedented number of Catholic organizations have launched lawsuits at the Obama administration for his healthcare plan’s mandated contraception provision – return fire in the President’s War on Religion. You wouldn’t know that these legal actions are historic in nature, based on the media blackout regarding the matter.
As LifeNews reports, there are 60 million Catholics in the U.S. who will comprise a major faction of the swing vote this coming election. So their response to the mandated contraception provision is indeed newsworthy. This is how the media has chosen to cover it however:
– ABC World News – ZERO seconds of coverage. But, last night there was time for a full report on sleep apnea and Katie Couric discussing how she met Queen Elizabeth; how she wore a peach coat and “a lovely peach hat.”
– NBC Nightly News – ZERO seconds of coverage. But last night there was time to squeeze in a story on a new computer app that shows America’s eating habits, “graphic evidence” of how we eat badly late at night.
– CBS Evening News – a brief 19 seconds of coverage on the evening the lawsuit became public. ZERO coverage last night. But there was time in the broadcast for a Cincinnati Reds baseball fan lucky enough to catch two home runs in left field.
“The intentional, deafening silence continues,” stated Brent Bozell, MRC President, “and we are not the only ones concerned. This deliberate censorship must come to an end.”
Tim Graham of the Media Research Center appeared on Your World With Neil Cavuto yesterday and explained quite succinctly why the media has remained silent.
Well, the old story is they don’t need to have a conspiracy, just a consensus. This is a group of people who all want Obama to be reelected, and they’re going to simply say ‘Look, this whole Catholic lawsuit just seems like a Republican publicity stunt to us, and we’re not gonna touch it.’ And look, this is – these are people who represent 60 million American Catholics. That’s a substantial voting bloc. They deserve more respect than the complete diss these networks have given the American Catholic church.
Will the Old Media stop shielding the Obama administration? Ever?
It started this morning with a lawsuit announced by the University of Notre Dame…
Via the AP through Weasel Zippers:
The University of Notre Dame is suing Obama administration officials over the mandate requiring most employers to cover birth control.
The school said Monday that the mandate violates religious freedom by requiring many religiously affiliated hospitals, schools and charities to comply. President Barack Obama offered to soften the mandate to accommodate religious groups, but U.S. Roman Catholic bishops say the change doesn’t go far enough.
Other religious colleges are already suing the Health and Human Service agency and administration officials over the mandate. Still, observers had been closely watching for Notre Dame’s next step.
The university is the most prominent Roman Catholic school in the country. Notre Dame came under then unprecedented criticism from U.S. bishops and others in 2009 for inviting Obama as commencement speaker. Obama supports abortion rights.
Then we learned that dozens of other Catholic organizations were joining the fight. There was an announcement that Cardinal Dolan of New York, and Cardinal Wuerl of D.C., had joined 40 other dioceses in a lawsuit against the Obama administration.
Via CNS News:
The Archdiocese of New York, headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., headed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the University of Notre Dame, and 40 other Catholic dioceses and organizations around the country announced on Monday that they are suing the Obama administration for violating their freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The dioceses and organizations, in different combinations, are filing 12 different lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.
The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has established a special website–preservereligiousfreedom.org–to explain its lawsuit and present news and developments concerning it.
“This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference,” the archdiocese says on the website. “It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs.”
The suits filed by the Catholic organizations focus on the regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced last August and finalized in January that requires virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.
Mitt Romney has to be thrilled that President Obama is helping to galvanize Catholic voters behind the Republican.
Seriously, are there any leftists out there that readily understand irony?
Boxing champ Manny Pacquiao recently voiced his support for marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. In an interview with the Conservative Examiner, Pacquiao had the following to say:
“God’s words first … obey God’s law first before considering the laws of man.”
“God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other.”
Not surprising, considering over 80% of the population identifies as Catholic in Pacquiao’s home country, the Philippines.
So how did the owner of a popular LA mall respond to those remarks? By banning the boxing legend – for intolerance.
The “tolerant” same-sex marriage left has struck again – this time, at the popular hangout The Grove, in Los Angeles. The owner of The Grove, Rick Caruso, tweeted that iconic boxing great and Philippines Congressman Manny Pacquiao would not be allowed “on the premises” thanks to Pacquiao’s outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage. “Boxer Manny Pacquiao is not welcome @TheGroveLA,” he tweeted. “@TheGroveLA is a gathering place for all Angelenos, not a place for intolerance.” Pacquiao was supposed to do an interview today with “Extra” at The Grove.
That now earns him a ban from a public area in Los Angeles.
So Caruso’s response to alleged intolerance is to promote blatant intolerance?
Now picture this had Pacquiao been a supporter of same sex marriage, who was subsequently banned by a conservative business owner. Perez Hilton, Dan Savage, and the like would be protesting and demanding the mall be shuttered, and the media would be hammering the owner for intolerance, labeling him a right-wing bigot.
Liberals want people to believe they support free speech and welcome all groups into their tent equally. But that only applies if you agree with their agenda whole-heartedly.
Intolerance, thy name is liberal.
The biggest question here is – who the hell gives a flying fig?
Via ABC News:
President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.
And for those who argue that this is an historic announcement – get a grip on yourself. Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, it is a manufactured controversy. It is not akin to the civil rights movement for blacks, or the civil rights movement for women. It is not an Arab Spring.
It is a non-issue.
Update: The Panderer-In-Chief is already soliciting campaign donations for his newly found … um … love affair, with gay marriage.
Via Weasel Zippers:
Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:
I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:
So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.
If you agree, you can stand up with me here. [goes to campaign fundraising page]
This is such a low-level calculated move to get votes, that I would almost think it beneath even Obama to stoop this far.
Incidentally, now that Obama is an advocate for states rights, he’ll be dropping lawsuits against those who are trying to secure their own borders right?
Shareholder to New York Times: “You’re Willing to Offend the Catholics Because They’re Not Going to Come and Kill You”
|New York Times Chairman, Arthur Sulzberger|
Last month, the New York Times accepted and ran an advertisement which bashed religion, and asked Catholic readers to consider leaving the church. Such an advertisement in itself does not show the Times religious bias. What does however, is the fact that the same newspaper refused to run a similar ad that asked practicing Muslims to do the same.
Via Fox News:
The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed an ad making the same plea to Muslims.
The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”
But in a story first reported by The Daily Caller, when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.
“This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the “gold standard” in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation,” Geller told FoxNews.com.
Responding to the heat brought on by the blatant hypocrisy, the New York Times claimed that they opposed the anti-Muslim ad because it could jeopardize the safety of American troops.
Fox News host Trace Gallagher reached out to the Times for comment, receiving the following explanation:
“The fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”
Now however, one shareholder at the New York Times has openly criticized their double-standard operation by suggesting that it is the company’s own safety they are looking out for.
Cliff Kincaid, Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and a shareholder in the company, confronted a group of executives at the Times annual shareholders meeting, accusing them of running the anti-Catholic ad because:
“You’re willing to offend the Catholics because they’re not going to come and kill you.”
That’s it in nutshell, is it not? The media is willing to report negatively about other religions, but refuse to cast a negative shadow on Islam. And fear is the overwhelming factor.
What the media should be doing is an introspection, asking themselves why they are afraid of offending Muslims. When they find that answer, maybe they can more accurately report on the events involving Islamic extremists.
Here is a larger excerpt from Kincaid’s report:
As does the rest of the reason-loving nation…
From the Weekly Standard:
Former Democratic congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, a Catholic from Erie, Pennsylvania, cast a crucial vote in favor of Obamacare in 2010. She lost her seat that November in part because of her controversial support of Obamacare. But Dahlkemper said recently that she would have never voted for the health care bill had she known that the Department of Health and Human Services would require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to provide free coverage of contraception, sterilization procedures, and the “week-after” pill “ella” that can induce early abortions.
“I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception,” Dahlkemper said in a press release sent out by Democrats for Life in November. “We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage.”
Of course, it’s easier to say this once the public has booted you out of office.