You are here: Home / Archives for General Motors

Corrupt Media Cheer For Homosexual Rights

March 28, 2013 by 5 Comments

Liberal Media SC Corrupt Media Cheer for Homosexual Rights

More explosive evidence of the media bias driving the campaign to change America’s culture and Judeo-Christian foundations has emerged.

Speaking at a “gay journalists” event in New York City last Thursday night, Natalie Morales of the NBC Today Show declared: “Many of us here in this room—the media—we are responsible for opening the world’s eyes to these issues and the stories that have brought about such change. When you think 18 years ago when this organization was founded—think of where the country was back then. And now, 50 percent—according to the Pew poll that we talked about on the news today—support gay marriage, and…some other polls put that number even higher. [This] reflects a change in attitudes in this country.”

This was not just an event where journalists “came out of the closet” for homosexual rights; it was a fundraiser for the cause. Our media paid big money to participate as sponsors and hosts.

My associate Peter LaBarbera and I covered the homosexual rights fundraiser, held in New York City under the auspices of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), and saw first-hand that it was a “who’s who” of media stars from every major news organization in the U.S. They included Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie of NBC, Gayle King of CBS News, Christine Romans of CNN, Amy Robach of ABC News, and Amanda Drury of CNBC.

The really big star of the evening was Natalie Morales of NBC’s Today Show, who told LaBarbera in a brief interview: “I think what’s happening here is this is a new civil rights movement…And I believe that they should be allowed to get married and love equally.”

In her remarks to the gathering, she joked about getting a lesbian kiss. “Now I have to say I’m a little flustered because on my way in here I was actually in the ladies room, and making out with a woman,” she said at the start of her remarks. “She insisted I was Jane Velez-Mitchell [of HLN]…Seriously she was screaming and shouting, ‘Jane, Jane, Jane!’ And I was like ‘I’m not…’ But I just gave in because we all know HLN stands for the ‘Hysterical Ladies Network.’ And …it was a good kiss, I’ll give her that.” She also commented on the “queens” in the audience of the reception being held in the Prince George Ballroom. CNN’s Javier Morgado introduced her.

While the atmosphere was festive and “gay,” the New York papers were catching up with news about a new strain of bacterial meningitis breaking out in the gay community. This was something that nobody wanted to talk about, at least publicly.

Contessa Brewer, formerly an anchor at MSNBC, was a major star, posing for pictures before declaring her support for homosexual rights and homosexual marriage and denouncing opponents of such as the equivalent of racists. She wanted my associate Peter LaBarbera to know, in a brief interview captured on camera, that she felt this way even though she was the daughter of a Baptist preacher.

Here is the transcript:

Peter LaBarbera: “I’m Peter LaBarbera with Americans For Truth. We’re sort of on the other side of the issue. We’re for traditional marriage and so forth….My question is: for some in the media, are you afraid that there’s not fair coverage for the other side—[that] now it’s veering so far the other way…that sometimes there’s a tendency to—”

Brewer: “You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter. I think that there’s a difference between being objective and being fair. And sometimes wrong is wrong, and the right thing to do is say when it’s wrong.”

LaBarbera: “A lot of Christians, for example, think that racism is a sin, but they also think that homosexuality [is a sin].”

Brewer: “You know what I say? I grew up as the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and you know what my answer always is? If you think it’s wrong, then don’t do it. Thank you [she walks away].”

NBCUniversal was the big host, with other media sponsors Bloomberg, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, BuzzFeed, The New York Times, and Newsday. Company sponsors were Vodka maker Voli, JetBlue, Heineken, Hillshire, Eli Lilly and Company, General Motors, the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, and Fleishman-Hillard.

The new president of the NLGJA is Jen Christensen of CNN, who previously worked on CNN’s “Special Investigations Unit.” She says, “We are not an advocacy group,” referring to the NLGJA. But the entire evening was advocacy. There was no pretense of being even-handed in covering the homosexual rights movement, of which they are clearly a major part.

It is worthwhile to examine the nature and depth of the bias as the Supreme Court takes up important court cases on homosexual rights because of the influence of the major media in bringing the country to this point in time. This event was concrete evidence of the bias from those in the media who have driven the campaign for homosexual rights for decades.

Morales was ecstatic: “What a difference a year makes. Think about where we were just even a year ago—all that has happened in the news for the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] community in particular: the repeal of the military’s ban on gays and lesbians, the widening support for same-sex marriage. The world seems to be evolving slowly but surely—from the President changing his position [on same-sex marriage] last year, to most recently this week…former Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton now saying gays and lesbians are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. And last week of course Republican Senator Rob Portman said he now supports gay marriage because he wants his son, who is gay, to have the same rights to love equally. I mean this of course is 2013 but it is happening.”

Even though this event featured all kinds of media celebrities, you will not find the media reporting on themselves because it would blow their cover—and blow the whistle on the bias they are implementing on a day-to-day basis. That is why Peter LaBarbera and I covered the event. We figured the media would not hesitate to pat each other on the backs.

Now that the nature of the bias is evident for everyone to see, however, the bias will take another turn as journalists will ignore the evidence that the major media have taken one side of the debate. What is significant is the lack of any real major media opposition to this bias.

Photo credit: wstera2 (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Confirmed: Taxpayers Lose Billions On Obama Auto Bailout

December 20, 2012 by 1 Comment

Barack Obama 11 SC Confirmed: Taxpayers Lose Billions On Obama Auto Bailout

Washington — The Obama administration said Wednesday it will sell 200 million shares — or 40 percent of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. — back to the automaker and announced plans to completely exit the Detroit automaker by March 2014.

The Detroit automaker said it will purchase 200 million shares of GM stock held by Treasury for $5.5 billion — or $27.50 per share — nearly $2 above the stock’s closing price on Tuesday. GM shares jumped sharply on the news and were up 7.5 percent to $27.36, or $1.90, early afternoon in very heavy trading.

The U.S. Treasury, after more than a year of refusing to say when it might start selling its remaining stake in GM, said it willannounce a written plan in January to shed its remaining 300 million shares over the next 12 to 15 months, likely in a series of small stock sales.

The Treasury’s move is intended to minimize the impact of the stock sale on the share price — and the government’s state will shrink from 26.5 percent to less than 19 percent — but the exit could be completed far more quickly.

The exit plan may prove to be a boost to GM’s lagging stock price and to some car buyers, who have avoided GM because of the “Government Motors” label.

Read More at detroitnews.com . By David Shepardson.

Photo Credit: Geoff Livingston (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With:

Intelligence And National Security Priorities

October 17, 2012 by 1 Comment

Barack Obama Phone SC Intelligence and National Security Priorities

A generation ago, in the 1970s, the U.S. intelligence community possessed the technology to discern whether or not a U.S. consulate was under attack by terrorists or by rioters run amok. Moreover, no one in the community ever wanted a superior, especially at the highest levels, to point to an article in the Washington Post or something they saw on television and ask, “What’s this all about?”

I know this, because I lived it—at the time and in the military.

In the ‘70s, intelligence priorities were focused on the Soviet Union, China, and the Communist bloc; nonetheless, an attack on a U.S. consulate would have prompted an immediate call directly to the secretary of state. If an ambassador were murdered, the secretary of state would have been informed, even awakened. It’s likely the next call would have gone to the White House.

Every year, the White House publishes its National Security Strategy of the United States, setting the nation’s security agenda. From the start, the Obama administration erased the term “War on Terror” from the national-security lexicon. In recent months, the narrative has revolved around “Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” establishing a false syllogism between two disparate and unrelated events nevertheless reflecting national-security priorities … as well as a muddled, uncertainty in priorities.

The attacks in Benghazi started late on the night of September 11. For Americans, the time difference between Washington and Libya put the attacks at the close of a day marked by remembrances for 9/11 victims.

It is inconceivable that the intelligence community, including watch officers at Langley, the Pentagon, and in the White House, were unaware that the attack was a well-coordinated, military-style operation, one far more powerful and concentrated than the intrusion by a squad of Viet Cong commandos into the compound of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon at the onset of the Tet Offensive in 1968.

There are established intelligence protocols for passing information “up the line.” Watch officers surely contacted their immediate supervisors—even if it meant interrupting their evening—along with appropriate area specialists. The decision to continue the notification rests with officials at various levels, so it is not inconceivable that the president of the United States would not be informed immediately of such an attack. It’s quite likely that his national security advisor and Secretary of State Clinton were informed. The claim of “evincible ignorance” involves a two-edge sword. While the highest levels of the U.S. government may have been uninformed at 7:00 p.m. on the night of September 11, a dozen hours later, analysts should have had time to sift through the “fog of war” with a good approximation of what happened and who was behind it.

This is where the story gets muddled. A riot in Cairo on 9/11, attributable to an obscure internet video publicized for political purposes by the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, made for a quick and convenient cover story to explain the tragedy in Benghazi. It also fit the political narrative that with Bin Laden dead, al Qaeda was “on the run.” Tragedy in Benghazi notwithstanding, it was time to get on with the main focus of the Obama administration, ensuring another four years to affect change, hopefully for the better—something that eluded the administration in its first four years.

The video scapegoat worked well, given that if it didn’t emanate from a crackpot right-winger with Tea Party sympathies, it probably did issue from a crackpot who by extension or implication reflects the kind of injudicious and inconvenient opinions the administration attributes to its opponents. That the Republican candidate Mitt Romney dared to criticize the administration in the wake of a tragedy costing the lives of four Americans offered the opportunity for trivializing criticism, especially when the root cause might be pinned on an internet video.

The intelligence community knew what happened in Benghazi. While it’s possible that President Obama wasn’t immediately informed, it’s less likely that the secretary of state was not told as soon as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ fate was known. Only the most egregious mishandling of intelligence would have prevented the president from getting the right information at the next briefing, which should have occurred the following morning, almost 12 hours after the event.

It comes down to a matter of priorities. Clearly, this administration’s reluctance to deal with the realities of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism, even under the admittedly weak description of a “War on Terror,” and its insistence that “al Qaeda is on the run” reflect a denial of reality. The White House reaction to the Benghazi debacle is amateurish at best.

 

Dr. Earl Tilford is a military historian and fellow for the Middle East & terrorism with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He currently lives in Tuscaloosa, Alabama where he is writing a history of the University of Alabama in the 1960s. A retired Air Force intelligence officer, Dr. Tilford earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University. From 1993 to 2001, he served as Director of Research at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute. In 2001, he left Government service for a professorship at Grove City College, where he taught courses in military history, national security, and international and domestic terrorism and counter-terrorism.

©2012 The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

Ryan Effectively Spars With Animated Biden At VP Debate

October 12, 2012 by 22 Comments

Paul Ruan SC Ryan effectively spars with animated Biden at VP debate

On the heels of a decisive GOP victory at the first presidential debate, VP candidate Paul Ryan generally met high expectations by going on the offensive early and often during Thursday night’s match-up against Joe Biden.

To be fair, Biden bested his boss’ dismal performance by staying true to his identity as a bombastic, old-school politician. Infinitely more animated than Obama, he frequently interrupted his Republican rival and grinned widely while Ryan spoke.

Though he steered clear of any glaringly obtuse gaffes, responses filled with long pauses and continual usage of “uh” and “um” stood in stark contrast to the obvious depth of knowledge Ryan brought to the event. While regularly referring to Ryan as “my friend,” Biden treated him dismissively while the challenger conducted himself with the character to effectively fill the nation’s second-highest executive position.

Given moderator Martha Raddatz’s history with Obama, she fostered a fairly balanced environment for the exchange of verbal jabs. Of course, I am comparing her to Jim Lehrer’s method — however ineffective — of holding Obama’s hand and prompting him to give a somewhat coherent response.

Raddatz began the debate, a more relaxed setup as both she and the candidates sat around a large desk, with the terrorist attacks in Libya exactly one month ago. An experienced foreign correspondent, Raddatz’s first asked Biden if the entire ordeal was a “massive intelligence failure.”

Ryan weighed in on the issue, mentioning the six references Obama made to the United Nations council concerning the YouTube video originally blamed for the violence. He immediately struck back with the absurdity of placing armed guards outside of the U.S. Embassy in Paris but not providing the same in Libya.

“What we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,” he said, saying the president’s position “promotes weakness abroad.”

Biden blamed Romney for prematurely blaming the current administration’s foreign policy failures for the atmosphere of violence, to which Ryan retorted, “It’s never too early to speak up for our values.”

Continuing in the foreign policy vein, Raddatz asked the candidates about Iran’s nuclear program.

Ryan expertly dissected the last four years of Obama failure, stating the Iranian program can feasibly produce five times more nuclear weapons than it could prior to his election.

“This administration has no credibility on this issue,” he said.

Biden tried to defend the Democrats’ opposition to imposing strong sanctions on Iran, saying they would not have been supported by the rest of the world. The eternal leftist, he wants to see America liked rather than respected. Ryan, on the other hand, seems to think we can have both.

When Biden suggested Iran is not a threat because they do not currently possess a weapon with which to use its nuclear material, Raddatz shot back with her own zinger, saying, “You’re acting a little bit like they don’t want one!”

Obama’s failed promise to return unemployment to below 6 percent was the topic Raddatz used to bring the debate back to U.S. soil, asking each candidate what they would do to reach that goal.

While Biden rested on his party’s supposed laurels, touting how Obama “saved” General Motors, he also found a way to make the first mention of Romney’s off-the-cuff “47 percent” comment.

“I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way,” Ryan said without missing a beat.

In response to the question, Ryan touched on each of his ticket’s five-point plan to add 12 million jobs and achieve 4 percent economic growth. Biden scored some points in return when, after Ryan disparaged Obama’s stimulus plan, he brought up the fact that Ryan sought stimulus funds twice for his constituents.

The candidates explained differences of opinion concerning Medicare, which prompted Ryan to bring up the massive fund transfer from Medicare to ObamaCare the Democrats recently approved.

“They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, turning Medicare into a piggybank for ObamaCare,” he said, attempting to speak over Biden’s attempts to interrupt him. “I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but I think people would be better served if we stop interrupting each other.”

Ryan performed well throughout the debate; but when the subject of taxes was broached, he was really able to shine. Attacking the Democrat plan to raise top tax rates to nearly 45 percent, he explained, “There aren’t enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending.”

Spewing facts faster than Biden could process them, Ryan brought up the 8 out of 10 small business filing taxes as individuals, the two-thirds of all jobs that are created by those small businesses, and the fallacy of taxing them completely out of business.

Raddatz asked what role the two candidates’ religion — Catholicism — plays in their views on abortion. Ryan’s principled view, reinforced when he saw the heartbeat of his firstborn child during a sonogram, is that life begins at conception and should be protected at all costs. While Biden claims to share the same view, he apparently has no qualms about allowing Americans to readily destroy that life. In technical terms, I believe that is called homicide.

Both candidates reportedly took debate preparation seriously; but Ryan, less experienced in such high-profile debates, seemed much more in control of his responses. His exceptional discipline, both personally and politically, was on display as he made easy work of Biden’s bombastic attacks with his own barrage of facts.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Electric Shock: Is GM Really Losing $49,000 On Every Chevy Volt?

September 14, 2012 by 3 Comments

According to a recent report, General Motors is losing big money on the Chevy Volt, as much as $49,000 per car. Why has the federal government invested in General Motors, and why is the Pentagon stocking up new Chevy Volts?

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Tea Party Lawmakers Torn Between Ideology, Reality

August 25, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Paul Ryan 3 SC Tea Party Lawmakers Torn Between Ideology, Reality

WASHINGTON (Official Wire) — Twenty months into a Congress they have tilted rightward, tea party loyalists are finding that ideological purity can be elusive for conservative lawmakers trying to balance their convictions against constituents’ election-year needs.

Rep. Paul Ryan, who has won tea party praise as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick, had a General Motors assembly plant that was about to be shuttered in his hometown of Janesville, Wis., when he voted for the $14 billion auto industry bailout in 2008. The seven-term House Republican also voted for the $700 billion financial industry rescue that same year.

He has since criticized both efforts by President George W. Bush to combat that year’s near economic collapse. Yet his votes — plus his support for Bush’s 2003 debt-financed expansion of Medicare to provide prescription drug coverage — rankle conservatives to this day and underscore the challenge of adhering to small-government principles when voters’ bread-and-butter interests are at stake.

Read more at Official Wire. By Alan Fram.

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With: , , ,

Report: Auto Bailout Cost Taxpayers $3.4B More Than Estimated

August 14, 2012 by 4 Comments

Barack Obama American flag 2 SC Report: Auto bailout cost taxpayers $3.4B more than estimated

The federal government’s bailout of the auto industry will cost $3.4 billion more than previously thought, according to revised estimates this week from the Treasury Department.

The department now says the taxpayer burden is $25.1 billion, up from the last quarterly estimate of $21.7 billion, Reuters reported Monday.

The 2009 federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler continues to play a key role in the presidential election, particularly in the critical swing states of Michigan and Ohio.
President Obama has touted the bailout as a successful accomplishment in his first term. Romney has argued that the auto bailout was not such a success. He says many jobs were lost — particularly in Michigan and Ohio — which have still not been recovered. The high cost to taxpayers can only help Romney’s argument.

Democrats have repeatedly reminded voters of Mitt Romney’s advice to “Let Detroit go bankrupt,” the title of a 2008 op-ed that the Republican candidate wrote for the New York Times. In contrast, Obama’s campaign released a TV ad in May calling the intervention into the failing companies “the right thing to do.”

Read More at The Hill. By Alicia M. Cohn.

Photo Credit: The US Army (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With: ,

Refuting Obama: GM Bailout NOT Good For America

August 10, 2012 by 2 Comments

In this video, Professor Steve Horwitz advocates for free market economic policy. He refutes the often recited claim that “What is good for General Motors is good for America” by explaining that pro-business legislation encourages behavior that is not beneficial to society or the business itself. Obama really should watch some of his videos.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: ,

Romney Ad Attacks Obama Support For Auto Bailout

August 1, 2012 by 4 Comments

Mitt Romney speech 3 SC Romney Ad Attacks Obama Support For Auto Bailout

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mitt Romney is attacking President Barack Obama’s support for the auto industry bailout in a new television ad.

The Republican presidential candidate is highlighting a General Motors dealer in Ohio forced to close in 2009. The ad blames the Obama administration for dealership closures across Ohio.

The spot is being released Wednesday, the same day Obama campaigns in Ohio.

Read More at OfficialWire. By Steve Peoples.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: News From The Web Tagged With: , ,

Some FAIR Comparisons, Mr. Obama!

July 20, 2012 by 2 Comments

Obama Romney SC Some FAIR Comparisons, Mr. Obama!

The Obama campaign is now resorting to trying  to defame Mitt  Romney, his Republican opponent in the 2012 Presidential election. So let’s make some comparisons, shall we? Bain Capital was a company put together with PRIVATE money. It sought out companies that were financially strapped and took them over trying to save them. Former employees from those same companies starring in Obama’s attack commercials did not have INSIDER knowledge of finances, at least as far as I know. Since when does a company open their books to their employees? Anyway, Bain managed, in the worst case scenario, to at least delay the demise of about 25-30% of the companies that they invested in financially. The other 70-75% of the other companies went on to thrive. Bain didn’t lose one dime of taxpayer’s money. If you think any investment capital company should succeed 100% of the time, then you put up YOUR money and start your own company. Nothing is able to teach a lesson so firmly as real life.

On the other hand, President Obama has wasted over a BILLION dollars by giving loans to iffy “green energy” companies that have for the most part failed! Obama “rescued” General Motors with taxpayer money and by cheating the investors out of their investment money in order to maintain the ludicrous union contracts. However, one of the side effects of the deal was that an awful lot of people lost their jobs at dealerships that were closed. This is something the PROGRESSIVES would have screamed to high heaven about if the President was a Republican!

Mr. Romney released his tax returns for the last couple of years, but the Obama campaign is implying that Romney needs to release more because he may be hiding something. Obama’s campaign has even stated that Romney may be guilty of a FELONY because he might have “lied” to the Securities and Exchange Commission. This allegation has been proven false by the Democrats who now run Bain Capital. There is also an accusation that because Romney has a Swiss bank account, and probably others in Europe (as do many wealthy PROGRESSIVE members of Congress), Romney is involved in some nefarious financial dealings.

So, Mr. Obama, let’s investigate ALL your friend’s financial dealings and the wealthier members of  Congress to see who REALLY has something to hide, shall we? How about your buddy, CONVICTED felon Tony Rezko? How about we investigate the unions that back you and have been buying luxury resort properties with members’ union contributions? By the way, where is the union getting the money to pay for all those expensive junkets that union leadership have been taking the last couple of years? How about the financing involved in your obtaining that expense piece of property next to your mansion in Chicago? Fair is fair; isn’t that what you are trying to achieve, FAIRNESS? Why are you demonizing Romney for being successful when that IS the American dream? Don’t tell us that you, the President of the United States, don’t believe in what America stands for!

Your Chicago politics are dishonest, dirty, and thuggish. Winning at any cost, Mr. Obama, sounds like a chapter right out of Saul Alinsky’s communist “Rules for Radicals” manifesto. You talk about Romney taking America back to the policies that “failed” America when in fact America enjoyed one of the greatest periods of prosperity in its history. Haven’t you been advocating taking America “back” to the Clinton tax rates (naturally without the spending cuts and balanced budget that accompanied them?)

In fairness, Mr. Obama, the accusation of Romney possibly being a felon is going to come back and bite you. What would happen if Congress were to call retired Admiral Joe Sestak, formerly a Congressman from Pennsylvania, and former President Bill Clinton to testify about a possible violation of law by the White House. Joe Sestak has claimed that the White House offered him a high position in government if he wouldn’t run against turncoat Senator Arlen Spector. Obama apparently needed Spector’s “sure” vote in the Senate to give him a filibuster-proof majority to pass Obamacare. If that scenario took place, then it is a FELONY under Federal Law!

How about hiding documents concerning ”Operation Fast & Furious”  under the umbrella of “Executive Privilege”? Have you got something to hide, Mr. Obama, that just may implicate you and your Attorney General in an illegal gunrunning scheme across our Southern border? Americans and Mexicans were killed because of the  botched operation, so who is RESPONSIBLE,  Mr. Obama? Maybe you should stop concentrating on the sins of others and instead worry about your own!

I hope the American public is smart enough to concentrate on who can best solve our current economic and international challenges before America as we know it disappears. By the way, Mr. Obama, rumor is that you threatened Chelsea Clinton to keep the Clintons in line. Is that really true? America needs to take a good hard look at you before this election, Mr. Obama. I for one detest Chicago politics and the Al Capone mentality that goes with it. America is better than that; at least it used to be. Adieu!

Photo credit: Cain and Todd Benson (Creative Commons)

 

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,