Tag Archives: David Gregory

Churches: Time To Fight!

By Michael Reagan

Evangelical Church SC Churches: Time to Fight!

You can’t win the fight if you don’t put on the gloves.

A punch-drunk, old heavyweight boxer knows that’s a truism, but not the churches of America.

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state by a 52 to 47 margin in 2008 but has since been declared unconstitutional by federal courts.

Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh, and other talk-show pundits have weighed in, arguing the conservative — and moral — position that sanctifying gay marriage with the grace of the U.S. Constitution is not only wrong but a serious threat to the culture of this country.

But those media outlets often speak to those who are already in the choir. That leaves a lot of other Americans who aren’t hearing anyone preaching the conservative argument on gay marriage.

I don’t expect the GOP to provide any leadership. Republicans are too busy cat-fighting with each other and making sure their presidential choice will be whooped by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And where in the heck are the churches on the issue of legalizing gay marriage?

Where are the Protestants, Jews, and Catholics? Have they lost their tongues? Their hearts and wills? Their institutional you-know-whats?

Where’s the moral outrage? Why aren’t thousands of our pastors, priests, and rabbis shouting from their pulpits? Why aren’t they leading their congregations through the streets in mass protest?

Why aren’t their bishops appearing on the tube with David Gregory and Piers Morgan to defend the institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman?

Like the bank executives who are too chicken to stand up to the federal bullies in Washington, and like the energy company bosses in California who won’t stand up to the Green Socialists in Sacramento, the churches cower in fear.

Are they afraid to lose their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by engaging in political activity? Are they afraid to be derided as religious nuts and cultural Cro-Magnons by the liberal media?

Or are our churches and their comfortable leaders simply no longer willing to fight for what is right?

This fight over Proposition 8 isn’t just about saying it should be legal in the eyes of government for two people of the same sex to get married in California.

It’s ultimately about changing the culture of the entire country; it inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage. There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.

Churches should be in the vanguard of the fight to defend the culture against legalized gay marriage, not hiding in their pews.

Sure, the mainstream liberal media will be against them and will ignore them as much as they can. But if the churches show up en masse — and make sure millions of their members’ voices are heard — the media will be forced to cover them, and even the …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

‘Mainstream Media’ Not Mainstream

By Tom Ballantyne Jr.

Media bias1 Mainstream Media Not Mainstream

I never imagined that I’d find myself quoting Bill’s one-time heart throb (okay, eons of time ago), but using her just happens to suit my purpose. (Guess Bill and I aren’t so different after all….)

A persistent (make that constant) theme I have extolled in both writing and speaking is that as Conservatives we should not fall prey to the ingrained habit of referring to the all-but-obsolete establishment media as “the mainstream” or “MSM.” Could anything be further from the truth? Stop and think about it for a minute….

As I like to tell audiences, “You’ll never see [David Gregory or Katie Couric, et al.] at a Denny’s!” It isn’t going to happen!

Back during the Roger Staubach Era, the Dallas Cowboys were affectionately referred to as “America’s Team.” As one might imagine, such a moniker would be considered the gold standard in the world of marketing or PR.

Imagine that you are starting a new grocery store chain, and through a stroke of luck you become known as “America’s Grocer.” Could it get any better than that?

Imagine, on the other hand, that you are one of the “Big Three” television and news networks – NBC, ABC, or CBS. Imagine also that over the past 50 years your viewership has plummeted from a virtual collective dominance of 100% to, say, 25% of the “news”- viewing public.

That would still represent one out of four American adults watching, but put in perspective, three out of four “news”-watchers would have rejected your collective “news” coverage. Not very good!

While that was merely a hypothetical construction on my part, here are some actual numbers for “Evening News Ratings,” obtained at MediaBistro.com:

NBC – 9,640,000 (Total Viewers)
ABC – 8,628,000 ( ” ” )
CBS – 7,482,000 ( ” ” )

Those numbers combined make 25,750,000 out of the current U.S. Population of 315,497,649. The annual population increase is estimated elsewhere (by extension) to be .76%. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the number of adults 18 or over to be 234,564,000 in 2010, which would be roughly 240,000,000 today, in 2013.

Thus the “Big Three” viewers among the total U.S. adult population (over 18) would be approximately 10.7%…far less than my “guesstimate” of 25%.

One site I came across seemed to indicate that some 74% of adults watch at least some news program weekly. According to this site, “CNN (20%) and FOX News (18%) are the television channels adults most often turn to when they want news or information related to politics or public affairs. These are followed by the networks, including ABC (9%), NBC (8%) and CBS (7%). Other channels include MSNBC (5%), C-SPAN (3%), PBS (3%) and CNBC (1%).”

These figures – for those who watch news or “political/public affairs” programs, as opposed to strictly the “Nightly [Network] News” – show an aggregate of 24%of Adults watching the Big Three.

Getting back to the Nightly Network News (America’s staple before Cable and the Internet)…it would appear that my hypothesis was spot on among viewers …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Jeb Bush: ‘You Guys Are Crack Addicts’

By The Huffington Post News Editors

Jeb Bush must have been tired of fielding questions on a potential 2016 run after a day of talk show appearances.

“Man, you guys are crack addicts,” he said to Meet The Press host David Gregory. “You really are obsessed with all this politics… okay, heroin addict. Is that better?”

Bush was responding to a question from Gregory on how he stacked up to another assumed 2016 hopeful from Florida, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio.

Read More…
More on Jeb Bush

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

John Boehner: Government Shutdown Is Not The Answer (VIDEO)

By The Huffington Post News Editors

While Congress failed to reach an agreement before March 1’s sequestration deadline, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is committed to keeping a government shutdown from happening.

In a Sunday appearance on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Boehner was asked by host David Gregory if he was willing doing whatever it takes to keep the government open.

Boehner’s response? “Absolutely.”

Read More…
More on Government Shutdown

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

Video: What Happened To NBC’s David Gregory? Nothing!

By Daniel Noe

The District Of Columbia has the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation, and it seems that those laws only apply to those who do not have the financial resources David Gregory has.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Emails: Decision on NBC host stirred response

District of Columbia prosecutors who decided against charging NBC television host David Gregory with firearms possession received more than 200 emails from citizens.

Almost all who weighed in either said Gregory should face charges or were upset when he wasn’t prosecuted for displaying a 30-round ammunition magazine on “Meet the Press.” Gregory used the device, which is illegal in D.C., as a prop while discussing gun control after the Connecticut school massacre.

The email authors, who included self-identified gun owners, said they felt the D.C. Office of Attorney General was giving Gregory a pass despite breaking the law. They questioned whether they’d be similarly protected if they did the same thing.

The Associated Press obtained many of the emails through a public records request.

A “Meet the Press” spokeswoman declined comment.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Obama Ignores The Rational Answer

By Michael Reagan

Barack Obama 6 SC Obama Ignores the Rational Answer

What do Al Hunt of Bloomberg News, David Gregory of “Meet the Press”, and President Obama have in common — besides their liberal politics?

They all send their kids to Sidwell Friends School.

With campuses in Washington, D.C. and Bethesda, Md., the highly selective private school is where the Clintons and the Gores sent their kids, along with Joe Biden’s grandchildren.

It’s also where the local 1 Percenters and the government-media elites who can afford to shell out about $32 grand a year to send their children to be indoctrinated — excuse me, educated — and to be safe.

Unlike parents across America who are worrying about how to protect their school kids in the wake of the tragic shootings in Newtown, Conn., Sidwell parents spend their days worry-free.

Their children are better protected than the printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. And it’s not because of the heavily armed Secret Service detail posted on campus to protect first-kids Sasha and Malia Obama.

It’s because Sidwell Friends — a Quaker school, by the way — is defended by guards with loaded guns. In addition to the Secret Service with its Uzis and large ammo clips, Sidwell has its own security staff of 11.

I didn’t hear President Obama mention Sidwell Friends’ solution to school safety on Wednesday when he announced his sweeping plans to reduce gun violence by banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, instituting tougher gun-registration laws, and taking steps to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

None of Obama’s measures would have prevented the slaughter of innocents in Connecticut, but that’s not the point. The point is pure politics, and the president and his crew want to take full advantage of the Newtown shootings to advance their anti-gun agenda.

At his White House media extravaganza, the president used lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and children as his props. The kids, drawn from across the U.S., had written letters to the president saying they were worried about gun violence and school safety. You can bet there were no Sidwell kids on stage with him.

While Washington’s grand-standers and anti-gun nuts prepare to fire their latest round of ineffective, politically correct, feel-good federal laws at law-abiding gun owners, at least six states are preparing new legislation that will allow teachers to carry guns into schools or require several teachers in the building to be armed.

Putting guards with guns in places that need to be protected from bad guys or crazies is not a radical idea. It’s perfectly sensible.

Politicians and celebrities use armed bodyguards all the time. We have armed guards in banks, jewelry stores, and malls. After 9/11 we armed airline pilots and armed federal marshals posing as passengers.

Only politicians and hysterical celebrity dummies like Piers Morgan can’t understand why making schools gun-free zones attracts mass-murders and reduces the chances that anyone with a gun will stop them to zero.

The president never thought of using Sidwell Friends as an example of how armed guards at schools can make them safer.

He was too busy trying to score points by attacking the NRA, dreaming up laws to further oppress law-abiding gun owners, and making fun of the people who know the Second Amendment isn’t about protecting duck hunters’ rights (it’s about the right of the people to protect themselves from their government.)

Meanwhile, here in Los Angeles, the Catholic grade school where my daughter teaches didn’t wait around for the president or Joe Biden to come up with complicated new laws to allegedly ensure the safety of their children.

The officials at my daughter’s school decided for themselves the best way to make their campus safer. Taking a cue from the smart folks who run the Sidwell Friends School, they did a simple, effective, and rational thing. They hired an armed guard.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

No charges for NBC host over ammunition magazine

NBC journalist David Gregory won’t face charges for displaying a high-capacity ammunition magazine on his “Meet the Press” news show, prosecutors announced Friday.

The city’s office of attorney general, which handles low-level crimes, said criminal charges wouldn’t serve the public’s best interests even though possession of the magazine — capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition — was clearly against the law. In a letter to NBC‘s lawyer, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan also said he recognized that the device was intended as a prop to provoke public discussion on gun control following the Connecticut school massacre.

“Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public” after the shooting and President Barack Obama‘s address to the nation, the letter said.

Firearms laws in the nation’s capital generally restrict the possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines, regardless of whether they’re attached to a firearm. D.C. police say NBC asked for permission to use the clip during a segment and was advised that it would be illegal. Gregory held up the magazine during a December 23 interview with Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

“Here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets. Now, isn’t it possible that if we got rid of these, if we replaced them and said, ‘Well, you can only have a magazine that carries five bullets or ten bullets,’ isn’t it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?” Gregory asked, referring to the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults.

LaPierre replied: “I don’t believe that’s going to make one difference. There are so many different ways to evade that even if you had that” ban.

Police began investigating after the show aired and recently referred its findings to the office of attorney general.

Gregory, a longtime correspondent, was named “Meet the Press” moderator in 2008. The show is generally taped in Washington.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Is Obama Black Enough To Call Out Black Parents Like Cosby Did?

By Fred Weinberg

Barack Obama 11 SC Is Obama Black Enough To Call Out Black Parents Like Cosby Did?

The fallout from the Connecticut school shooting and the ludicrous concept that reinstating the so-called assault weapons ban would stop future incidents has occupied this column for the past two weeks.

As I said last week, I hate writing about the same thing two weeks in a row; but this subject is multi-faceted and in areas you would not expect at first blush.

My thought is that the ultimate solution to any social problem is parenting; and to that end, I have a question of President Obama and his wife, who appear to be classic role models as a couple and as parents.

The latest information that the Federal Government has available is that in the black community—which voted 93 percent for Obama in 2012—72.1% of the births in 2008 were to unmarried mothers. That’s up from 37.5% in 1970.

72.1%.  Put another way, that means that roughly 721 out of every 1,000 black kids is raised in a fatherless household.

And it’s not like the rest of the nation has all that much to be proud of.  Hispanics clock in at 53.4% and whites at 35.9%, which are less eye-popping but are still an embarrassment.  In all, it’s a lot of single-parent households raising kids, mostly mothers.

So my question for the President and the First Lady is: “Where are you on this issue?”

Try finding a statement, pre or post his 2008 election from him or her on the issue.

He had plenty to say about gay marriage during the last election campaign.  He was all for that.

But you see the black-on-black crime statistics in places like, say, Chicago, and you have to wonder why America’s first black President has lost his voice.

One possible answer is that while Obama is undeniably black, he doesn’t have the street credibility of being black enough to lecture the black community the way a Bill Cosby did.  And Cosby, when he let loose his rant in 2004, took a huge beating from the black establishment. (He was unimpressed and continued to speak out.)

While Cosby is best known as an entertainer, he happens to have a PhD from UMass in education.  His credentials in the area are certainly the equal of the President’s.

He said at a dinner to honor the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision: “I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn’t know that he had a pistol? And where is the father?”

There is no question that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are not the kind of parents Cosby was referring to.

But their silence is deafening.

It is similar to the silence we heard from many American Muslims who, after 9-11, were asked their opinion on radical islamists and answered “It is not for me to judge.”

I don’t know how much impact it would have if President Obama were to come out and say about his own black community what Cosby said, but it could not hurt. In fact, it could only be helpful.

And I’m a believer that even if he reaches just a small part of that constituency, it will have a good long-term effect. Far more effective than his inevitable political loss from an attempt at a gun ban of some sort.

I saw him on TV last weekend, and he told NBC’s David Gregory that he had to do something.

What he didn’t say was that whatever he did would necessarily have any effect.  The calculus seemed to be purely political.

And, of course, the chattering class on Meet the Press still doesn’t understand that one of the exact reasons the Second Amendment exists is to keep the government at arm’s length.  They likely never will.

We can only hope Obama, with no more campaigns ahead of him and no more elections to win, would break out of his political box and suggest to his most loyal constituency that two-parent households work.

Because gun-grabbing doesn’t.

If we’re going to have a “national conversation”, how about we talk about restoring parental responsibility as a concept instead of how we go about taking away a law-abiding citizen’s constitutional rights.

Photo credit: Geoff Livingston (Creative Commons)

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism