Below you can take action by emailing and/or calling one of the stations to air the program.
(Advertisement: Story Continues below)
WSYX-TV in Columbus bans TV special 'Speechless...Silencing the Christians'
Handful of homosexual activists complain. WSYX-TV pulls program saying it is controversial!
TV station WSYX-TV, ABC affiliate Channel 6, has bowed down to the demands of a handful of homosexual activists and banned the showing of our TV special "Speechless...Silencing the Christians." The TV special was scheduled to be shown by WSYX-TV Monday, February 9, at 7 pm. We bought time to air the special but when a handful of homosexual activists called the station to complain, the station immediately yanked the special. You can watch the one-hour program that WSYX-TV banned here.Repeated phone calls TO WSYX-TV by the company handling our scheduling have not been returned.Oddly enough, the TV special shows how the media censors Christians! WSYX -TV has no problem with two lesbians or two homosexuals kissing or getting into bed with each. The station doesn't consider all the profanity it airs controversial. WSYX-TV regularly shows network programs advocating for the homosexual agenda, but they are not considered controversial. However, a special showing how Christians are being silenced is controversial!The Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual group in America, has asked its members to call the station and tell it not to air the TV special. Don't let only their side be heard.
The Dow Jones on February 12th before the passing of the Stimulus package on the 13th in the House was 7,932.76 according to MarketWatch. On the 13th after passing the House but not yet the Senate it dropped to 7,850.41. The Senate passed the bill late Friday night so lets see how the market responded today (the day Obama is signed the stimulus bill) since there was no trading on Presidents day. It dropped 297.81 to 7552.60 basically the lowest it has been since Obama's election at 7552.29 on 11/20/2009 as far as I have recorded and am pretty sure is the case.
I started checking the Dow Jones as an experiment in 11/06/2009 assuming that politics effect our economy. I understand there are many other factors and that we are in the context of economic uncertainty but it appears that there is some co-relation thus far in this experiment. We will see how it goes forward.
"Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters nationwide believe the $787-billion stimulus plan passed by Congress will help the economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% believe the plan will hurt and 24% believe it will have little impact.
Middle-income Americans are more likely to believe the bill will hurt rather than help. Those with incomes below $40,000 or above $100,000 are more optimistic.
By a 49% to 24% margin, government employees believe the stimulus plan will help the economy. Private sector workers are evenly divided. Investors are less optimistic than non-investors.....
(Advertisement: Story Continues below)
Sixty-six percent (66%) of Democrats say the plan will help the economy, and only 10% believe it will hurt. Among Republicans, 49% say it will hurt, and 30% say it will have little impact. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 27% say it will help, and 34% think it will hurt the economy.
TORONTO, February 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 12-year-old "Lia" of Toronto has become a star at her school and on Youtube with her five-minute pro-life speech, crafted for a school competition. Despite discouragement and outright opposition, Lia's presentation was so well done that she reportedly won the contest she was told she would be disqualified from, due to the "controversial" message of her speech.
"What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were gonna live or die?" begins the charismatic seventh-grader in a practice recording of the speech posted on Youtube. "What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done in the past, or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do nothing about it?
"Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation. Someone is choosing without even knowing them whether they are going to live or die. That someone is their mother. And that choice is abortion."
Lia, speaking easily and with sunny enthusiasm, fires off answers to several common objections in the brief speech.
"Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk or do what we do, it isn't a human being yet?" She asks. "Some babies are born after only five months. Is this baby not human?
(Advertisement: Story Continues below)
"We would never say that. Yet abortions are performed on 5-month-old fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if they're wanted?
"Think about the child's rights, that were never given to it. No matter what rights the mother has, it doesn't mean we can deny the rights of the fetus," she said. "We must remember that with our rights and our choices come responsibilities, and we can't take someone else's rights away to avoid our responsibilities."
Lia's mother says that the topic was of her own choosing, and that she was determined not to back down, even after teachers told her it was "too mature" and "too controversial."
"She was also told that if she went ahead with that topic, she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech competition," Lia's mother wrote in the email to the Moral Outcry blog. "Initially, I tried helping her find other topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was adamant. She just felt she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. So she forfeited her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about."
The mother told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that the girl's homeroom teacher was supportive of Lia's speech even though she was pro-choice. "After helping Lia do the speech she said, 'It really got me thinking,'" the mom noted.
At the schoolwide competition, the mom said one pro-choice teacher on the judge's panel "didn't even want to hear" the speech, and stepped down from the panel before Lia began. After the speech, which Lia's family said was well-received by both students and teachers, the judges initially told Lia she had indeed been disqualified. But controversy among the judges eventually led to a reversal, and Lia's family learned the next day that the panel agreed the girl deserved to win the competition.
"There was a big stink about it, and we volunteered to step down ... but her teacher said 'No, she won fair and square, so she'll keep going on," said her mom. Lia is expected to present her speech at a regional competition tomorrow night, representing her school.
When asked what inspired Lia to pursue the topic so adamantly, her mother said it was "a little mystery."
While the family espouses pro-life Christian values, "it's not like we're out every weekend picketing," she said. "It was just something really deep in her heart, and she just felt really passionate about it." She added: "I kind of snicker when I see people on the Youtube video [comment box] saying 'Oh, her mother forced her to do this' - I'm like, 'No, I'm on the other end, trying to make her pick another topic!'
"But she was just really passionate about it, and she has her research on it," said the mother. "I really believe it's just something that God put in her heart."
Other News from around the world from LifeSiteNews.com
LifeSiteNews.com is a must subscribe to feed. Try it for a while I think you will see why. What makes them somewhat unique to the US is that they not only cover stories in the US but all over the world. This is where I get alot of the international news from. I believe they started out in Canada.
The sign said, "Jesus loves you and your baby. Can we help?" It was held by Rev. Walter Hoye, who on May 13, 2008, was arrested for doing what he does a lot - standing in front of the Oakland, CA, Family Planning Specialists abortion mill offering leaflets with abortion alternatives information and holding that sign.
Only Oakland passed a "bubble law" to stop Hoye and other pro-lifers from exercising their free speech. So while Hoye has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Oakland's law, he has meanwhile been found guilty of 2 counts of unlawful approach. Hoye's sentencing is scheduled for Febraury 19. He faces up to 2 years in jail and a $4,000 fine.
That Hoye received this verdict is even more ridiculous when knowing pro-lifers secretly videotaped the supposed incident, and the tape shows quite the opposite of what mill workers testified - under oath.
According to CA Catholic mill director Jackie Barbic testified:
[She] told the jury she came downstairs with a tape measure and told Hoye to back away from patients, staff and escorts. Barbic testified that Hoye then came very close to her, stared at her and made her and two escorts feel very threatened and intimidated.
(Advertisement: Story Continues below)
"... Barbic... [said] Walter walked up to within a couple of feet of her, and she had to back away from him," said [Katie] Short [Hoye defense attorney from Life Legal Defense Foundation]. "Her voice actually choked with emotion as she recounted how frightened she had been. She didn't know that Walter had someone videotaping him that day. So on cross-examination, we showed her the videotape of the incident, showing her approaching Walter, and him not moving an inch toward her.
"Up until then, she had detailed everything that happened at the clinic that morning. But when she saw the tape that debunked her story, she said, 'Oh! I just remembered that there was another time later in the day when I was downstairs that he approached me.' We have videotape of Walter from when he arrived to when he left."
Here's another video clip from the day, which begs the question: Who was harrassing whom? It shows deathscorts stalking pro-lifers and holding their pro-abortion signs in front of the pro-life signs." See video above
The Brazilian Government is reportedly planning to re-educate its citizens after a survey found that 99 per cent of its citizens are “homophobic”.
The government made its claim on the back of a survey in which people were tested for “homophobia” and their response to different statements regarding sexuality and religion, according to Brazilian newspaper O Globo. The survey was conducted by an organisation linked to the Labor Party, which currently controls the executive and much of the legislative branch of Brazil.
The 92 per cent of Brazilians who agreed partially or completely that, "God made men and women with different sexes so that they could fulfil their role and have children" were determined to be homophobic by the study's authors.
“Homophobia” was also determined to be the reason that 58 per cent of respondents agreed that "Homosexuality is a sin against the laws of God".
(Advertisement: Story Continues below)
Among those deemed to be homophobic were also the 41 per cent of people who agreed that homosexuality was an illness that needed treating, and the 64 per cent who said that they objected to homosexuals hugging and kissing in public.
According to O Globo, the Brazilian Government will use the information collected "to plan new policies, and warns that it has now detected a dark consequence of so much prejudice: intolerance".
Paulo Biagi, coordinator of the government's “Brazil Without Homophobia” campaign said, "There's no way [for the government] not to involve itself, because intolerance must manifest itself in crimes, including crimes committed by agents of the government."
Biagi added that the government will begin to "rearticulate" the case for its proposed "anti-homophobia" law, which would make criticism of homosexual behaviour illegal in Brazil.
The government is also planning on launching a National Plan for the Promotion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Citizens in May, and will be starting a television campaign to fight “homophobia” along with ten other South American countries.
Julio Severo, a Brazilian pro-family activist said on his blog, the Last Days Watchman, that, "What is surprising is how a population that is 99 per cent against homosexuality is accepting passively that its 100 per cent pro-homosexuality government is lifting homosexual acts to the level of inviolable sacredness…and at the same time it is lowering 99 per cent of Brazilians to the class of 'ignorant mob' that should be forcefully condemned to state policies of reeducation."
Pro lifers in the UK are seeking transparency--that's the big new buzz word, isn't it?-- about eugenic abortion in the UK, and apparently the government is trying to squelch the news. From the story:
They have accused officials of using restrictions that are more heavy-handed than those used in terrorist trials, to exclude them from a tribunal which will decide whether statistics on foetuses aborted because of disabilities will be published.
(Advertisement: Story Continues below)
The hearing next month will decide whether figures on the number of babies aborted for disabilities such as cleft palate and club foot should be published.
While abortion is only legal in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy if carried out on social grounds, it is legal to abort a foetus which has a serious risk of physical or mental abnormality, right up to birth. In 2005, after a public outcry over the termination of a foetus with a cleft palate at 28 weeks, the Department of Health (DoH) stopped publishing abortion statistics if fewer than 10 cases were carried out. Details of abortions on foetus with club feet, cleft lips and palates and webbed fingers and toes were no longer published.
The Information Commissioner has ordered the release of the figures, requested by the Pro-Life Alliance campaign group, but the DoH is resisting, claiming that the data could lead to women who have late abortions being identified.
That's always the excuse. But they just don't want the truth out--to the extent that the government doesn't even want them allowed in the hearing:
During discussions about restrictions at the hearings, Government lawyers referred to procedures used in terrorist trials, when lawyers are not allowed to discuss the most sensitive evidence with their clients, before going further, to request that the alliance are entirely banned from proceedings.
Julia Millington, from the alliance, accused the Government of a "serious misuse" of the judicial process to shield the debate from scrutiny.
Well, such acts are best done in secret. It keeps the collective conscience from being disturbed and the national self image from being tarnished."
In Gregg Stories, Short Shrift to White House's Census Grab ABC, CBS and NBC centered their Thursday night stories, on Senator Judd Gregg's decision to withdraw as Commerce Secretary-nominee, around his disagreement with the Obama administration's "stimulus" plan -- with only passing mention, if any, of the administration's wish to move the 2010 census count from Commerce to the White House.
CNN's Jessica Yellin reported at the top of the 6 PM EST Situation Room that "sources close to Senator Gregg say the bigger issue for him was the White House's effort to take control of the census," yet that politicalization of the census wasn't mentioned at all in a full CBS Evening News story from Chip Reid, who found time to relay how "a top Democratic source on Capitol Hill was more blunt, saying Gregg actively campaigned for the job, then 'erratically dropped out without warning,'" nor in a Katie Couric-Bob Schieffer discussion.
(Advertisement: Story Continues below) On ABC's World News, George Stephanopoulos offered a clause about the census, but couched as merely a GOP allegation: "Since the nomination became public there were two public issues over who would administer the census -- that was getting politicized according to Republican officials -- and also over the stimulus bill."
Only after a full story on Gregg and Obama campaigning in Illinois for the "stimulus" bill did NBC's Chuck Todd get to the census issue: "There actually might have been a raw political reason and that was the fact that the White House was going to take control of the census away from the Commerce Department and into their own hands. And that had become sort of a mini firestorm, both on the right and the left, and at the end of the day, with the White House and Rahm Emanuel wanting control of that census, that was yet another reason why Judd Gregg decided he didn't want the job."
[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Thursday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
A February 11 CyberAlert item, "Networks Silent on White House Grab of 2010 Census," recounted:
The Obama administration's decision to have the White House supervise the 2010 Census -- a response to left-wing complaints that the Census was too important to leave under the authority of Republican Judd Gregg, the nominee for Commerce Secretary -- has thus (as of Tuesday morning) far drawn absolutely no attention from the three broadcast networks, with not a single mention on the ABC, CBS or NBC morning or evening newscasts.
This would undoubtedly be a huge story if the White House were still in Republican hands and it was the GOP that was attempting to take over the Census. As the Wall Street Journal's John Fund reported on Tuesday: "'There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement,' a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. 'And it's called politics, not science.'"
CBS's Early Show and ABC's Good Morning America on Friday almost entirely ignored the embarrassing departure of yet another of Barack Obama's cabinet nominees, with only NBC's Today providing any real information on the event. GMA devoted a scant 15 seconds to the withdrawal of Republican Senator Judd Gregg as the President's second nominee for Commerce Secretary. (Previous choice Bill Richards dropped out for tax reasons.) Instead, the networks included segments on aphrodisiacs for Valentine's Day and how to make a flour-less chocolate cake.
Early Show doubled ABC, managing a still insignificant 30 second anchor brief. NBC's Today actually featured a full report and had the most coverage, three minutes and 21 seconds. Out of a combined eight hours of programming, the total for all three came to only four minutes and six seconds. None of the coverage made any mention of Senator Gregg's opposition to the Obama administration's goal of moving the 2010 census count from the Commerce Department to the White House. (The census issue was mostly ignored on Thursday's evening news programs as well. For more, see a February 13 CyberAlert posting: www.mrc.org )
[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org:newsbusters.org ]
Now, obviously, much of the networks' coverage revolved around the tragic plane crash that occurred in New York on Thursday night. But, that doesn't fully explain the lack of reporting. A sampling of Good Morning America's other stories included one on how to make affordable, romantic Valentine's Day meals. (Sam Champion created a flourless chocolate cake with cook Emeril Lagasse.) Barry Manilow also performed and a full segment was devoted to cute stories of how couples met. In total, GMA provided 23 minutes of coverage to frivolous topics, compared to their 15 seconds for the Gregg story. On The Early Show, the CBS program touted what foods could be aphrodisiacs for Valentine's Day.
On ABC, guest news anchor Bianna Golodryga vaguely asserted that Gregg stepped aside because of "conflicts with President Obama's policies." Over on The Early Show, Russ Mitchell simply proclaimed, "The New Hampshire Republican said he cannot support Mr. Obama's economic stimulus plan." Lester Holt, during a Today show news brief, cited "differences." In the program's full report, reporter Savannah Guthrie mentioned "irresolvable differences over policy." To repeat, none of the journalists specifically mentioned Gregg's opposition to the moving of the 2010 census from the Commerce Department to the White House.
A round up of the February 13 coverage from ABC, CBS and NBC follows:
# GMA, 8:05 BIANNA GOLODRYGA: The Obama administration expects to name a new commerce secretary nominee soon now that Republican Senator Judd Gregg has withdrawn. Gregg stepped aside because of conflicts with President Obama's policies. The next nominee will be the President's fourth [sic] pick for the job.
# The Early Show, 8:05AM RUSS MITCHELL: President Obama is back on the hunt for a commerce secretary, after Senator Judd Gregg pulled out. The New Hampshire Republican said he cannot support Mr. Obama's economic stimulus plan. JUDD GREGG: I realize that to withdraw at this point is really unfair in many ways, but to go forward and take this position and then find myself sitting there and not being able to do the job the way it should be done on behalf of the president, 100% , it would have been an even bigger mistake. MITCHELL: And Gregg will remain in the Senate.
# Today, 8:03 LESTER HOLT: Republican Senator Judd Gregg has withdrawn as commerce secretary nominee, saying he has irresolvable differences with President Obama's policies.
9:07, 18 seconds LESTER HOLT: President Barack Obama is looking again to fill the position of commerce secretary in his cabinet. New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg has withdrawn his nomination, saying he had too many differences with the President over the economic stimulus plan and other policies. Gregg is the second commerce nominee to withdraw.
7:13 MEREDITH VIEIRA: And now to politics and another bump in the road for President Obama when it comes to his Cabinet picks. NBC's Savannah Guthrie is at the White House. Savannah, good morning to you. [on screen headline: "Team Of Rivalry? GOP's Gregg Pulls Out Of Obama Cabinet"] SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Good morning, Meredith. For the third time, the President is looking for a Commerce Secretary after Republican Senator Judd Gregg abruptly withdrew his name. Now aides say they knew for a few days he was wavering, but didn't learn the final decision until everyone else did. The President spent the evening in Springfield, Illinois, commemorating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. BARACK OBAMA: In 1854, Lincoln was simply a Springfield lawyer. GUTHRIE: And trying to laugh off his latest Cabinet troubles. OBAMA: Maybe wondering if somebody might call him up and ask him to be Commerce Secretary. He- JUDD GREGG: Well, I want to begin by thanking the president for considering me. GUTHRIE: Late Thursday, Republican Senator Judd Gregg abruptly withdrew his nomination to be Commerce Secretary, citing irresolvable differences over policy. GREGG: Bottom line is, this was simply a bridge too far for me. The President asked me to do it. I said yes. That was my mistake. Not his. OBAMA: We had, had a discussion over the last couple of days. I wasn't sure whether he had made a final decision or not. GUTHRIE: Appearing blind-sided, White House aides were quick to say Gregg campaigned for the job, but aboard Air Force One, the President was gracious. OBAMA ON AIR FORCE ONE: You know I'm optimistic that we're gonna be able to still work together. I've got to get my Commerce Secretary, though. OBAMA AT WHITE HOUSE: How, clearly, Judd and I don't agree on every issue. GUTHRIE: When Obama nominated Gregg 10 days ago, he was one of three Republicans in Obama's "Team of Rivals." Gregg now goes back to the Senate where he hasn't yet weighed in on the President's stimulus package. Now the President faces yet another headache filling the Cabinet. His first choice for Commerce, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, dropped out because of a state ethics investigation. Tax problems took out Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and threatened Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's nomination. OBAMA: It is time for Congress to act. GUTHRIE: The President is trying to keep the focus on the economy. On Thursday, he visited the headquarters of Caterpillar, a heavy machinery company that is laying off more than 20,000 workers, an example, the President said, of a company that will benefit from the stimulus package. OBAMA: Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off. GUTHRIE: But after the President left, Caterpillar's CEO Jim Owens hedged a bit. JIM OWENS: The reality is, we'll probably have to have more layoffs before we start hiring again. GUTHRIE: Well, the President is about to get a victory on his stimulus. Both houses of Congress expected to vote as early as today on the package. Final price tag, $789.5 billion, Meredith"
110,000 emails and thousands of calls have been sent to ABC/Disney officials demanding they immediately move to recuse Stephanopoulos from reporting on the Obama Administration.
Obama cabinet team being compared to the likes of Lincoln...
George Stephanopoulos became a political celebrity for his high profile slot as a spin doctor in Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, a role glamorized in the documentary The War Room. After the election, Stephanopoulos served four years as a top presidential aide, championing his own liberal views on issues such as affirmative action and the Supreme Court.
Leaving the White House at the end of 1996, Stephanopoulos joined ABC News as not just a liberal political analyst, but as someone who would soon begin to report the news as a supposedly unbiased reporter. According to the December 12, 1996 New York Times:
Mr. Stephanopoulos will contribute to various programs, but at the outset he will appear most often as a political analyst on This Week, the Sunday morning news program with Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson as co-hosts. Eventually Mr. Stephanopoulos is expected to do some reporting as a correspondent, the network said.
Former New York Times executive editor Max Frankel — no conservative — deplored what the move said about ABC’s journalistic integrity in a January 19, 1997 column:
The overnight transformation of George Stephanopoulos from partisan pitchman to television journalist highlights a disturbing phenomenon: the progressive collapse of the walls that traditionally separated news from propaganda. Self-respecting news organizations used to pride themselves on the sturdy barriers they maintained to guard against all kinds of partisan contamination....[Stephanopoulos’s] case shows how no one even bothers any longer to decontaminate a convert (like, say, Bill Moyers) by stretching out his passage from politics to reporting over a cleansing period of time.
(Advertisement: Story Continues below)
In his 1997 memoir, All Too Human, Stephanopoulos candidly described his liberal ideology and how he was frustrated whenever President Clinton would choose a more moderate approach to social policy. While a majority of those who came of age in the Reagan era became Republicans, Stephanopoulos wrote that he became a Democrat because of his dislike of Ronald Reagan’s economic policies:
Working against Reagan’s budget [in 1981] made me a Democrat. I didn’t think supply-side economics would work, and I didn’t believe it was fair. Perhaps it wouldn’t have happened had I had a different summer job, but unlike the millions of Democrats whom Reagan inspired to vote Republican, I was a Republican he pushed the other way.
But over the past 12 years — as ABC has maneuvered Stephanopulos from liberal pundit to political analyst for Good Morning America to chief Washington correspondent, host of This Week on Sunday mornings and occasional fill-in anchor of World News — the corporate line has been that the onetime Clintonista has been scrubbed free of the liberal ideology that originally drew him to politics. On the July 24, 2001 Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer fawned over Stephanopoulos: “Watching you and watching you cover the news over the past year, you are so much about passion for politics, and it doesn’t matter to you, I mean — I really mean this....You’ve been completely non-partisan in covering the news.”
In 2003, ABC executive producer Tom Bettag enthused about Stephanopulos: “If you can help him get a dominant position on Sunday morning, he is in a position to be a journalistic leader for the next 30 years.” And when he was officially tapped to take over as the sole host of ABC’s This Week, replacing the team of Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, Stephanopoulos spun on his own behalf to the Newsday’s TV writer: “If I were biased, I don’t believe I would have gotten the job.”
But in his on-air role at ABC, Stephanopoulos has been a reliable mouthpiece for the Democratic spin of the day — using his perch as an analyst and correspondent to add an extra boost to liberals, undermine conservatives and push a liberal policy agenda. Key examples:
George Stephanopoulos: “This first week was disciplined and strategic like that campaign, all designed to show that the President is moving on all fronts to bring change....Signs those executive orders for sweeping change to open government....Sweeping change in foreign policy....Working on the economy, but also with bipartisan congressional leadership, the President showing that he wants to change the tone in Washington.” Fill-in anchor Diane Sawyer: “Change the tone and change it at warp speed.” — ABC’s World News, January 23, 2009.
Co-host Diane Sawyer: “Speaking of the President-elect, kind of an anniversary today, 30 days since he was elected. So, it’s time to launch the first annual, ever, 30-day George Stephanopoulos presidential election awards....What are the headlines to you?| George Stephanopoulos: “Well, he’s managed the transition with the same kind of precision and discipline that he managed to show during the campaign....It’s hard to imagine this first month going much better for the President-elect.” — ABC’s Good Morning America, December 4, 2008.
Co-host Robin Roberts: “Some would say it’s a team of rivals, a la President Lincoln, or is a better comparison a team of geniuses as FDR did?” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “Well, one Obama advisor told me what they like is a combination of team of rivals and The Best and the Brightest, which is the David Halberstam book about the incoming Kennedy administration.... We have not seen this kind of combination of star power and brain power and political muscle this early in a cabinet in our lifetimes.” — ABC’s Good Morning America, November 24, 2008.
“Bottom line, the winner is Barack Obama. He comes into this race where the country wants change. His number one goal was to show that he belonged on that stage. He was a credible commander-in-chief, that he could hold his own on national security. He did that tonight. He gets the win.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Nightline, September 26, 2008, declaring Barack Obama the winner of his debate with John McCain earlier that night.
Co-host Terry Moran: “But the bottom line here, who’s the winner, George?” George Stephanopoulos: “Joe Biden, but boy, was this close. I think that Governor Palin did an awful lot to help herself tonight. There is no question that she beat expectations, that she was fluent, that she showed she could stand up there on the stage. She laid a couple of attacks there against Barack Obama, but going back to my first point on overall strategy, right now, this is a race where if John McCain cannot convince the country that he's going to take it in a different direction from President Bush, he simply cannot win.” — ABC’s Nightline following the vice presidential debate, October 3, 2008.
“Obama is two for two....He definitely won tonight. I think, again, he showed over the course of this debate, over the course of the two debates, he is answering the number one question Americans have about him: Does he have the experience it takes to serve effectively as President? Over the course now of three hours of debates, he is answering that question minute by minute.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos grading the presidential debate on Nightline, October 7, 2008.
"He won tonight by staying cool under pressure. He won tonight by parrying the attacks of John McCain. The only thing that John McCain could have really done tonight to change the tenor of this campaign was to get under Obama's skin, to force him into an error. That did not happen tonight. Another win for Barack Obama." — Stephanopoulos on ABC’s Nightline after the final debate, October 15, 2008.
“[It was] the toughest of the last two weeks. Far and away the toughest speech we’ve seen so far....What I wonder about is how it came across on television. A little too nasty? A little too ugly? I don’t know.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos moments after Rudy Giuliani’s speech to the Republican convention, September 3, 2008.
George Stephanopoulos: “You’ve taken heat this week with your comments saying that Senator Obama would rather lose a war than win a political campaign. I can’t believe you believe that.” John McCain: “Well, I’m not questioning his patriotism. I’m questioning his actions. I’m questioning his lack, total lack of understanding.” Stephanopoulos: “But that is questioning his patriotism. When you say someone would rather lose a war...that’s questioning his honor, his decency, his character.” — Exchange on the July 27, 2008 edition of ABC’s This Week.
Co-host Diane Sawyer: “And the moment where it was a question about would there be a Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton ticket, or Clinton/Obama ticket.” George Stephanopoulos: “The dream ticket.” — ABC’s Good Morning America, February 1, 2008.
“And this is still on the table, the dream ticket. I mean, and I think one of the things they’re going to be talking about today is how hard does she [Hillary Clinton] push with her 17 million votes for that place on the ticket?...I think it’s the best ticket for the Democrats. I think if Barack Obama picks her, they have the best chance of winning.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, a top official in Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign and first administration, on Good Morning America, June 3, 2008.
“By refusing to renounce Reverend Wright, that was in many ways an act of honor for Senator Obama.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos discussing Obama’s speech on race relations, March 18, 2008 World News.
“As a speech, it was sophisticated, eloquent. Barack Obama is as fine a writer as you’ll find in a politician. The question is....how voters will respond, not only to the honesty that Barack Obama showed yesterday, not only the sophistication he showed in the speech, but also the honor that he showed. He did not renounce someone that he was under a great pressure to renounce, even though he disagreed with his comments. And I think a lot of voters, even if they’re uncomfortable with Reverend Wright, will respect Barack Obama for that act.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos assessing Obama’s speech on race relations, Good Morning America, March 19, 2008.
Co-host Diane Sawyer: “So, George, on the scandal Richter scale, one to ten, what does — where does this rank?” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “Somewhere between a six and seven, Diane. I think it’s a damaging story, there’s no question about that.” — ABC’s Good Morning America, February 21, 2008, a few hours after a front-page New York Times story suggested McCain had a “romantic” relationship with a female lobbyist but presented no evidence to back up the charge.
ABC’s Sam Donaldson: “[Senator Barack Obama is] an African-American. Is the country ready? Well, I think it is. And he said he thinks it is. He said he thinks he’ll lose some votes because of that, and so the question is, what does the word ‘some’ mean?....” Moderator George Stephanopoulos: “Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m naive, but Sam, I guess I think that anyone who’s not going to vote for Barack Obama because he is black isn’t going to vote for a Democrat anyway.” — ABC’s This Week, May 13, 2007.
“The Tax Policy Institute [actually, Center] has crunched the numbers on John McCain’s tax plan. I want to put some of them up there right now. It shows that if you’re making under $60,000 a year about, the bottom 60 percent will get about $150. The top one percent of people, making about $600,000 a year, get $45,000. The top 0.1 percent — that’s approaching $3 million a year — get almost $270,000. How do you sell that as a plan that targets Sam’s Club more than the country club?” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) on This Week, June 29, 2008. Stephanopulos did not identify the Tax Policy Center as a joint project of two liberal think tanks, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.
“There was a statistic that came out this week from the Congressional Budget Office which was just stunning to me. It said that in the last two years — from 2003 to 2005 — the increase in income for the top one percent exceeded the total income of the bottom 20 percent. Given that, what would be wrong with letting the tax cuts for the top one percent expire and plowing that money into education?” — Host George Stephanopoulos to former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan on ABC’s This Week, December 16, 2007.
Host George Stephanopoulos: “You were Secretary of Energy. Energy independence, as you say, is going to be one of the number one issues in the campaign. And you’ve talked about alternative energy. But isn’t it going to take real sacrifice, real cutbacks in consumption if we’re going to be energy independent?...Higher gas taxes?” Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM): “It’s going to be a collaborative effort. No, you don’t have to do it with taxes....” Stephanopoulos: “But aren’t higher energy taxes the best way to get people to conserve?” — ABC’s This Week, January 21, 2007.
“You also have said that we have to have bold ideas for energy independence, and your theme is ‘courage to change.’ Just about every expert on energy says the best way to become energy independent is to raise the price of oil and gas, to have a serious energy tax. Why not call for it?...Couldn’t we become independent much more quickly if we had the kind of energy tax you see in Europe?” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to Democratic presidential candidate Tom Vilsack on This Week, December 3, 2006.
“I mean, if the deficit continued to grow, it’s not responsible to say you’re never going to raise taxes....Ronald Reagan also increased taxes....So it’s, ‘Read my lips,’ you’re never going to vote to raise taxes?” — George Stephanopoulos to conservative Stephen Laffey, who was challenging liberal Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island’s GOP Senate primary, ABC’s This Week, September 3, 2006.
George Stephanopoulos: “You say roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He [President Bush] says no tax increase of any kind. We’re spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, probably $200 billion on Katrina. Something’s got to give.” Former President Bill Clinton: “Well, that’s what I think.” — ABC’s This Week, September 18, 2005.
“So what would you do about those deficits if you were Treasury Secretary today? What taxes would you raise?” – ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin on This Week, November 16, 2003.
“The important point the Obama campaign wants to make is that whenever an unfair charge or an untrue charge is leveled, they’re going to respond. They’re going to hit back hard. They’re colored by the experience of the Michael Dukakis Democratic campaign in 1988, of John Kerry’s campaign in 2004. In both those cases, the Democratic candidates were attacked by unfair and untrue charges but failed to respond and lost the election.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, June 13, 2008.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “You use the phrase ‘politics of personal destruction,’ you say you’ve been scrutinized by Democrats and I know you probably don’t like this comparison, when I hear those phrases I think of President Clinton. [Do] you feel more of a kinship now with him given what you’ve been through?” Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX): “Not at all. President Clinton broke the law, he lied to a grand jury. I have not done anything against the law.” — ABC’s Good Morning America, April 5, 2006.
George Stephanopoulos: “Did government neglect turn a natural disaster into a human catastrophe? And was it rooted in racism?” Rapper Kanye West on NBC’s Concert for Hurricane Relief: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Stephanopoulos: “We’ll ask the only African-American in the Senate, Barack Obama, in an exclusive interview.” — Stephanopoulos beginning ABC’s This Week, Sept. 11, 2005.
Host George Stephanopoulos: “There have been many who have said that the entire media was cowed in the aftermath of 9/11 and didn’t go hard enough, for example, at the story of weapons of mass destruction and there was a story to be gotten in the media didn’t do their job.” Ex-WashingtonPost Executive Editor Ben Bradlee: “Well, I think there’s some merit to that.” — ABC’s This Week, June 5, 2005.
“I wonder if stylistically he [John Kerry] helped himself even more than substantively, if by appearing calm and confident, for the most part, during this debate. He answered the flip-flopper charge with his demeanor even more than with his words.” – ABC’s George Stephanopoulos during live coverage immediately following the September 30, 2004 debate.
“We’ve turned to a lot of experts, a lot of forgery experts and they point to a lot of clues which show that these documents may have been doctored, that they had to have been produced by a word processor, not a typewriter that was available at the time....A lot of Democrats suspect this was a set up, something set up by Republicans. So there’s a lot of suspicion going around on all sides.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos talking about the 60 Minutes story about Bush’s National Guard Service, September 10, 2004 Good Morning America.
“The Vice President was very, very tough, but Zell Miller was on a tirade. I mean, he was red faced, red meat for the red states.” – ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America September 2, 2004 recounting the Republican convention speeches from the night before.
“As he [Zell Miller] was talking, I was getting e-mails saying, you know, this reminds me of Houston, 1992 – Pat Buchanan. Now, Zell Miller is no Pat Buchanan, but it was a very, very hot speech, not likely to convince, as I said before, many of the unconvinced.” – George Stephanopoulos during ABC’s live coverage, September 1, 2004.
“He delivered a blistering attack on President Bush on Iraq. He said that we were ‘misled into war,’ that we went into war ‘because we wanted to, not because we had to,’ and ‘we went into war without a plan to win the peace.’ That was a very, very tough attack. And he says that he will wage the war with the lessons he learned in war. That’s going to be tough for the Republicans to respond to.” — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos during live coverage right after John Kerry’s speech to the Democratic convention, July 29, 2004.
Charles Gibson: “If you’re a Republican operative, a close advisor to President Bush, you’re hoping John Kerry last night lays an egg.” George Stephanopoulos: “And he doesn’t.” Gibson: “Boy, he did not.” Stephanopoulos: “Not at all. I mean, John Kerry went out there and he went right into the teeth of Republican issues. I mean, it was the political equivalent of turning toward enemy fire and charging the hill.” — Exchange on Good Morning America, July 30, 2004.
Charles Gibson: “George, have you ever seen an administration put on a sort of full-court press against one individual as they did yesterday?” George Stephanopoulos: “On a book? No, never, it’s never happened before. You would have thought yesterday that [former counterterrorism official] Richard Clarke was John Kerry.” — ABC’s Good Morning America, March 23, 2004.
Flashback:
“Someone should have to pass a bare threshold of credibility before they’re put on the air to millions of viewers. You know, his [Gary Aldrich’s] story couldn’t get past the fact-checker at the National Enquirer....A 30-year record in the FBI in and of itself is no proof of credibility.” — Then-Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week on June 30, 1996, attacking FBI agent Gary Aldrich for writing a book critical of the White House.
George Stephanopoulos: “And for his crowning moment [testifying at Slobodan Milosevic’s war crimes trial], General Clark calls on a big gun as a character witness.” General Wesley Clark: “This is a statement from former President Bill Clinton: ‘Contrary to Mr. Milosevic, General Wesley Clark carried out the policy of the NATO alliance, to stop massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, with great skill, integrity and determination.’ And I ask that this be submitted as an item for the record.” — ABC’s This Week, December 21, 2003.
“What would you advise the United States to do today to fight al-Qaeda?...What would be the wise course for the United States to follow now in Iraq?” — George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, Aug. 3, 2003, interviewing Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi, sponsor of several anti-American terrorist attacks in the 1980s.
“Take a look at the cost of some of those [tax cut] proposals. I have a package here: Doubling the loss deduction costs about a billion dollars a year; increasing IRA limits, about $1.5 billion a year; and ending the double taxation of dividends, according to a 1992 Treasury study, at least $13 billion a year – some people think it would be far more. Now compare that to the cost of the emergency spending proposal, which the President rejected this week. It was $5 billion. It included firefighting grants, nuclear plant security, cargo inspection and the emergency funds for New York City. Is the President saying, if he proposes a new tax plan, that these tax proposals are more important, are a higher priority for the United States than those spending proposals?” — George Stephanopoulos to White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett on ABC’s This Week, August 18, 2002. The items Stephanopoulos cited totaled $523 million, or just one–tenth of the total spending package.
“There is no question, or very little question, that Al Gore won the votes cast in the state of Florida. The question is: Will he win the votes counted? Look at the statistics. In the rest of the state of Palm Beach County [sic], Buchanan was strongest in the precincts where Bush was strongest. In Palm Beach he was strongest where Gore was strongest because they were right next to each other on the ballot. Even more important, in the rest of the state Buchanan got the same percentage of votes on the ballots as he did in absentees. In Palm Beach County he got four times more votes on this butterfly ballot than he did on absentees. Listen, if this race is counted fairly, Al Gore won more votes in Florida.” — George Stephanopoulos on This Week, November 12, 2000.
“Gore dominated the debate, Peter...It was even the way that he would interrupt Jim Lehrer and say, ‘Listen, I want one more word.’ He looked like he was dominating, and then again, the issues that the time was spent on: prescription drugs, education, Social Security, even the RU-486 and abortion issue. All of those favor Gore.” — ABC political analyst George Stephanopoulos, October 3, 2000 post-debate coverage.
“There wasn’t a single issue, with perhaps the exception of the energy question, where Gore lost on points over the course of the 90 minutes. He was strong, he was detailed, he was specific and he posed questions to Bush that Bush left on the table. My guess is also on the issue of foreign policy, Bush was quite shaky, particularly when he was talking about military readiness, when he was talking about the situation in Serbia right now. Gore actually corrected him. Yes, Gore was too much of a know-it-all, a little too arrogant, but I think that people in the end were looking at the substance and the specifics, and on that, Gore won.” — Stephanopoulos on Nightline, same night.
“Democrats are pretty happy right now. They would have liked if John McCain did a little bit better yesterday, but they had decided they would rather run against George W. Bush, especially because he’s had to move so far to the right. You know, he’s now the kamikaze conservative, with all the positions he’s had to take here in South Carolina – against choice, going to Bob Jones University, really locking himself in on that huge tax cut.” — ABC analyst George Stephanopoulos, February 20, 2000 This Week.
“Virtuoso, Peter. The address of a proud President, a tireless policy wonk and a very shrewd political strategist. He essentially handed Vice President Gore his campaign plan tonight. Lots of proposals that he suspects won’t pass — prescription drugs, gun control, Medicare reform – and he sets up Vice President Gore to run against a do-nothing Congress this fall, just like Harry Truman did in 1948.” — ABC political analyst George Stephanopoulos minutes after the State of the Union speech, January 27, 2000.
Sam Donaldson: “I think Governor Weld has done this country a service in a sense, even though I think that he’s been shot down in the ocean now, and that is by allowing the country to see Senator Helms in action. Over the years I’ve run into him two or three times at receptions here and he’s the most gentlemanly, courtly, friendly, pleasant individual you would ever hope to meet. But, when you see him in action, you see beneath that courtliness beats the heart of a dictator and I think the country is appalled.” George Stephanopoulos: “Or a terrorist. The President is really, I think made a mistake because he’s been negotiating with a terrorist here.” — Exchange on ABC’s This Week, September 14, 1997.
A five-year-old girl from Devon was left in tears after her teacher reprimanded her for talking about Jesus in class – and her mummy could be facing the sack.
The girl’s mother, who works part-time at the school, is being investigated by governors because she emailed friends at church asking them to pray about her daughter’s situation.
(Advertisement: Story Continues below)
Mrs Jennie Cain is being supported by The Christian Institute’s legal defence fund.
The head teacher at the school, Mr Gary Read, learnt about the prayer request after he got hold of a private email sent by Mrs Cain from home using her personal email account.
He would not tell the 38-year-old mother of two how he got a copy of her personal email, but he told her she was being investigated for misconduct.
Mrs Cain said: “I felt embarrassed that a private prayer email was read by the school – it felt like someone had gone through my personal prayer diary.
“I feel my beliefs are so central to who I am, are such a part of my children’s life.
“I do feel our beliefs haven’t been respected and I don’t feel I have been treated fairly. I don’t know what I am supposed to have done wrong.”
On 22 January Mrs Cain went to pick up her children from the 275-strong Landscore Primary School in Crediton, Devon.
Earlier that day her daughter, Jasmine, had been overheard by a teacher discussing heaven and God with a friend. The teacher took the five-year-old to one side and told her off.
Mrs Cain said that when she picked her children up from school, “my daughter burst into tears, her face was all red and she was clearly upset.
“She said ‘my teacher told me I couldn’t talk about Jesus’ – I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
“She said she was taken aside in the classroom and told she couldn’t say that. I was so shocked, I didn’t know what to do.”
The next day Mrs Cain was called into Mr Read’s office over another matter before he started discussing her daughter, Jasmine.
“He started talking about my daughter about how he wasn’t happy about her making statements about her faith.
“At that point I froze, I felt very small and I felt trapped as I was a junior member of staff.”
That weekend, she emailed a prayer request from her personal computer at home to ten trusted friends from her church.
“I asked them to please pray for us, please pray for Jasmine, please pray for the school and pray for the church.”
A few days later she was called back into Mr Read’s office.
“I didn’t think at this point I could be more stunned. He had in his hand a copy of my private, personal email and it was highlighted all the way through.
“He said that he was going to investigate me for professional misconduct because I had been making allegations about the school and staff to members of the public.”
Mrs Cain, who was not suspended, said he refused to tell her where he had got the email but said two independent governors would be taking statements and calling witnesses.
“He said the investigation could be followed by disciplinary action up to and including dismissal because of this private email.”
The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge said: “I thought I had heard it all when I learned a nurse had been suspended for offering to pray for a patient.
“But now a five-year-old girl and her mother have been slammed for nothing more than expressing their Christian faith.
“I am particularly concerned about the way in which Mrs Cain’s private email to her church friends ended up in the hands of the head teacher.
“This is the latest in a series of cases where Christians are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. It is really getting to a point where it has to stop.”
Update: Watch the house and senate debate the issue of the economic stimulus package. This is a good two hours each but I would encourage viewers to check it out just to see how the house and senate debate and to get both sides of the issue unfiltered by Big Media. Maybe listen to it in the background as you are doing something around the house or what not. You will find that Big Media misses alot especially as to why this bill got more bipartisan non-support then bipartisan support as more democrats voted against this bill then did republicans vote for this bill. Not one republican in the house voted for this bill and only three in the senate did.
Obama's weekly address
Republican weekly address
Not one republican voted yes on this bill in the House and only 3 voted yes in the senate. 7 democrats voted no on this bill in the house. I point this out just to point out that this was hardly a bipartisan bill rather this bill had more bipartisan non support then support.
If you have the time or just want to get a little flavor of what goes on in the house and senate as they debate the stimulus bill or just wish to get both sides of the debate without Big Media filtering it here are two links from cspan.
"What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were gonna live or die?" begins the charismatic seventh-grader in a practice recording of the speech posted on Youtube. "What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done in the past, or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do nothing about it? 
