Category Archives: Homosexual Agenda
As we celebrate 10 years of The Arizona Conservative, here’s one of the more memorable reports on appalling and outrageous behavior by the left-stream media:
I Have No Dog in the Fight’ and other Arizona Media Myths
July 6, 2006
No one in the Arizona media better epitomizes liberal bias than Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services. It is unclear whether Fischer obtained his journalism degree from a box of Crackerjax or from the “Acme School of Pseudo-Journalism.”
What was apparent once again today were his bias and unquestioned disdain for all things conservative relating to respect for life/marriage/family. The boorish Fischer behaved atrociously, not to mention unprofessionally, in the events surrounding Protect Marriage Arizona’s submission of ballot initiative signatures at the Secretary of State’s Office in Phoenix.
Fischer is an agenda-driven “journalist” who has made a disreputable career of starting off his so-called “straight news stories” by ripping conservative ideas and legislative bills. Today, he teed off on an initiative designed to prevent judicial activists from circumventing the democratic process and changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual and polygamous “marriages.”
As members of the Protect Marriage Arizona coalition waited for colleagues to arrive at the state capital with the signatures of 307,576 eligible voters who want to protect current marriage laws with an amendment to the state constitution, Fischer could barely contain himself. He asked gleefully if the petitions had been lost or possibly delivered to the wrong location.
A person knowing of Fischer’s biases responded, “You wish …” To which, Fischer said, “I have no dog in the fight,” and then he walked away.
Minutes later, the coalition forces had transported several boxes of petitions up seven floors to Secretary of State Jan Brewer’s office, as a large media entourage watched. The boxes had barely been placed on the office floor when Fischer, salivating for the taste of conservative flesh, led the charge. Leo Gozdich, president of The National Association of Marriage Enhancement, answered a media question, and then Fischer and the media “pack dogs” surrounded him and verbally tore into him. Gozdich explained the benefits and value of marriage to society, all of which was lost on the intellectually challenged, emotionally-driven media.
Fischer was front and center harassing Gozdich. “Why do you not want civil unions,” Fischer angrily asked Gozdich.
Gozdich said, “We are protecting traditional marriage.”
“Who’s tradition!” shouted an alleged “reporter,” obviously emboldened by the alpha “reporter’s” aggression.
As the rancor grew between the attack dogs and Gozdich, Nathan Sproul cut in. “The story today,” said the campaign consultant for PMA, “is that we have submitted over 300,000 signatures. This speaks to the grassroots movement to protect marriage in Arizona.”
When Bob McClay, reporter for KTAR Radio (Phoenix) asked Sproul his name, Fischer bared his “fangs” and shot in, “He’s paid.” As if Sproul would not want to protect marriage if not paid for his services.
“Our singular intent is to preserve marriage,” Sproul said, unfazed. Sproul said the idea behind Protect Marriage Arizona is to put the issue of heterosexual marriage on the election ballot and let the people decide.
“Isn’t that pretty elitist?” Fischer asked snottily.
“It used to be that blacks and whites couldn’t marry either.”
Gozdich, himself a former Columbia University journalism student, had seen enough. “We live in a democracy … you’re engaging in debate, not in journalism,” he told an over-the-edge Fischer.
Another alleged “reporter” – not wearing any badge and who could have been a homosexual activist posing as a reporter – wedged his way to the front and fired another hard-edged and loaded question across the bow of the PMA leaders. Sproul calmly said, “We are 100 percent confident we will be able to defend the legal challenge in Superior Court and in the Arizona Supreme Court.” Sproul, too, had had enough by now and he declared the press conference over.
He and the coalition members then departed via the elevator.
“Why are you cutting off the press conference?” shouted Fischer, anxious for more verbal sparring.
On his way to the elevator, Gozdich said that the New York Supreme Court had just yesterday delivered a ruling in defense of traditional marriage. Not that any of this would matter to intellectually starved media reps in attendance plying leftist theology.
Fischer continued ranting and raving as the ravenous pack waited for its own elevator. “They should answer our questions! They cut off the press conference!” The media “groupthink swarm” then moved as one unit into the elevator and headed down to the first floor. Fischer, spoiling for a fight, rambled on barely coherent: “Sproul’s been investigated before. In Nevada, he was destroying Democrat registrations … they cut off the press conference … I love Nathan saying ‘we’re off the record here’ …. And Nathan saying ‘we weren’t prepared for a press conference.’”
Another “reporter” in the elevator — Dennis Welch of the East Valley Tribune, said, “we’re the media scum.” The temptation is strong to make a statement about truth in advertising, but no additional comment will be added here.
At last, the elevator reaches the ground floor, the door opens and “alpha dog” Fischer lunges out looking for and finding a likely victim — Secretary of State Jan Brewer, waiting for an upward bound elevator. “Have you ever had a relationship with a homosexual,” Fischer asked. Brewer laughed him off and walked on. I
t was obvious that the homosexual activists who oppose PMA did not need to be there today. The media did their dirty work for them.
The one bright spot of the morning came minutes later in the Wesley Bolin Plaza parking lot, where McClay conducted a fair, civil, and unbiased one-on-one interview with Gozdich.
Imagine that, a real interview conducted with professional deportment, rather than a debate from a reporter. There is hope for the Arizona media after all.
Senator John McCain — a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution? LOL! Joke of the century! If it was Reagan, it wasn’t President Ronald Reagan, late leader of the party of freedom. McCain’s a purebred freedom-robbing Progressive.
And Senator Jeff Flake — limited-government Libertarian? LOL! A self-described conservative reformer? Get outa town! ROFL!
These two imposters joined with 62 other Progressives in the Senate in an attempt to force businesses and ministries to hire cross dressers and drag queens. They voted for the homosexual dream bill, ENDA, Thursday. It’s the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — which will force employers and churches under threat of huge federal fines to hire people who perceive their gender isn’t the one they were born with. Try to dismiss one of them from your employ and you’ll have the full weight of the U.S. government on your back.
Flake pulled a bait-and-switch. He voted against ENDA on a procedural vote Monday, then turned coat and voted for it Thursday. The radical progressive bill passed the Senate 64-32.
But as we pointed out earlier in the week, House Speaker John Boehner will dropkick this horrible, freedom-stealing bill to the moon where it belongs. It won’t see the light of day in the House.
And as for the false self-portrayals of McCain and his shadow, Flake, they can tell it to the moon as well. They are not part of the solution in Washington. They are poster boys for all the problems in Washington, and our state delegation in the U.S. Senate is a lost cause. Let freedom ring. Let our elected officials fight Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, et al, not agree with them on hideous, radical extreme homeland make-overs.
We’re glad to see U.S. Senator Jeff Flake correct a past mistake Monday and vote against the radical Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). As a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he previously voted for the homosexual activists’ pet legislation.
On the other hand, Senator John McCain wimped out and declined to vote at all. Probably because his wife had signed a petition to him to support it. But not voting against an evil bill is not taking a stand of integrity. We would prefer to see McCain vote against ENDA and help educate people against its exceedingly high potential for persecution of Christians and business owners.
In fact, while the Senate refuses to produce a budget or take steps to strengthen America’s business climiate, it prefers instead to reward radical special interests, including the homosexual lobby, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and others. The Senate passed ENDA 61-30.
Fortunately, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said he will not give it a vote in his chamber.
This bill would force businesses and ministries to hire misfits and sexually confused people who do not support their goals and missions. Refuse to hire them, or to fire them, could result in ruinous lawsuits.
All the revolutionaries who want to radically reshape America favor this bill, which gets repeatedly shot down in Congress. It’s time the radicals — and the Senate — let it go. Americans do not want ENDA; they have shown it clearly again and again. Harry Reid, let’s get on with the nation’s important business and end this Mickey Mouse ENDA malarkey once and for all.
Arizonans won a great victory when several attorneys recently teamed up to defeat an outrageous attack on liberty by those pushing the homosexual agenda.
The radicals in the State Bar of Arizona proposed to punish any member attorneys who did not bow down to the neon idol of the homosexual agenda. They sought to amend one of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct by making discrimination based on so-called “sexual orientation” and so-called “gender identity” a punishable offense. This would have resulted in disciplinary actions against Christian lawyers who practice law in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs. It would have removed a huge brick in the wall of freedom in Arizona.
Fortunately the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the outrageous and unreasonable posposal. This victory would not have been possible if several freedom-loving lawyers had not submitted a comment in opposition to the proposed amendment change.
These non-discrimination laws are already being used across the nation to punish Christian business owners who refuse to offer their services to people practicing immoral behavior, such as hedonistic parades and amoral sexual deviancy.
By Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Headlines are full of a new Australian “interim report” that studied kids with homosexual parents — one that reportedly shows “children of same-sex couples thriving.” Not surprisingly, the motivation for the research may be more political than academic. Just last year, the Australian Parliament rejected the redefinition of marriage — but the pressure from liberals is still on.
Homosexual activists around the world are desperate to counter the “gold-standard” research released last year by University of Texas sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus. His study, which surveyed upwards of 5,000 people, showed that children with a parent who had a homosexual relationship suffered serious deficits on a wide range of outcomes. (FRC’s Peter Sprigg wrote an analysis and detailed summary of the Regnerus research.) Regnerus responded to the reports out of Australia, criticizing it for its methodological weaknesses. Unlike Regnerus’s survey, the Australian authors refused to use a random sample and instead recruited participants at local gay and lesbian groups.
“Simply put,” Regnerus says, “its participants are likely very aware of the political import of the study topic, and an unknown number of them probably signed up for that very reason. As a result, I’m just not sure I trust their self-reports, which may be subject to considerable ‘social desirability bias,’ or the tendency to portray oneself on surveys as better than one actually is.”
Also, this study is not limited to kids raised by same-sex “couples” — it’s a study of “children… with at least one parent who self identifies as being same-sex attracted.” Ironically, one of the chief criticisms of Regnerus was that his subjects were not necessarily raised by same-sex couples (a point he made clear). If that limited the relevance of Regnerus’s research to the debate over the same-sex “marriage,” as critics claimed, then surely the same is true of the Australian study.