White House Uses Gay Tax Money to Fund Anti-Gay Propoganda

Article by Paul Johnson

Washington - Syndicated conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher who testified before the Senate in support of a constitutional ban on gay marriage was paid by the Bush Administration it was revealed on Wednesday.

The Washington Post reports that Gallagher received more than $40,000 from the White House and from the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's program promoting heterosexual marriage as a means of strengthening families. She neglected to mention she was on the Administration's payroll when she testified in 2003 before the Senate subcommittee on the Constitution.

Just months before her appearance before the subcommittee she wrote in the National Review that "Polygamy is not worse than gay marriage, it is better."

Interviewed for a Wednesday column by the Post's Howard Kurtz, Gallagher said, "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me." She also told Kurtz she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

After Kurtz told her Tuesday that he was working on a story about the payoff, Gallagher filed a column in which she said that "I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers."

Earlier this month is was disclosed that another prominent conservative columnist was also paid by the Bush Administration to promote the President's agenda in his columns.

Armstrong Williams who regularly attacks gays was paid nearly a quarter million dollars to promote the No Child Left Behind law according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by USA Today.

Tribune Media Services dropped Williams's column after his administration contract was disclosed. Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes Gallagher's column, said it plans no such action.

The nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization Wednesday called on the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate whether Gallagher violated federal law by not disclosing the funding to the public or Congress.

"The public deserves to know if there are other 'pay-to-sway' columnists and opinion leaders on the Bush Administration payroll," said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg.

In the letter, Stachelberg wrote, "The failure to disclose a financial conflict-of-interest seems to us to be a clear violation of the public's trust in journalist integrity. We would like to know whether federal law or congressional rules were violated when Gallagher testified before Congress, testimony that to our knowledge was not preceded by disclosures of these financial contracts and interests. ... In an era of pinched funding, where critical health care and social service programs are experiencing severe budget cuts, we find the use of government funds for political advocacy to be deeply troubling."

National Stonewall Democrats also criticized Gallagher.

"Maggie Gallagher is perhaps the best know advocate for marriage discrimination against gay families," said Dave Noble, NSD Executive Director. "The White House should not be shadow funding her activities while Republicans call on her to testify before Congress as an independent voice on such matters."

During a scheduled news conference Wednesday the President was asked about paying journalists for promoting Administration policy.

"It's wrong," Bush said, adding he has instructed his cabinet not to allow it to occur again.

"We value our reputation with the press, Bush said, "And the press must remain independent."

I don't support gay marriage but a federal amendment is unnecessary.

Once again, this isn't an issue so much about sexual orientation as it is about illegal gov't practices.

idiot...

who gives these people jobs?

...it's a sad, sad world.

The government obvously......
(F*ck them.....)

now bush is saying he had nothing to do with it and that he's backing out of it...*cough*bullshit*cough*

January 26th, 2005 11:08 pm
Bush Says Won't Pay Commentators to Promote Agenda

By Adam Entous / Reuters

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday ordered his Cabinet secretaries not to pay media commentators to promote his legislative agenda, saying payments by the Education Department were improper and new leadership was now in place.

In his most direct criticism to date, Bush leveled blame at officials at the Education Department for paying conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to tout his landmark education plan, "No Child Left Behind."

Bush said it was an improper use of government funds, and told a news conference: "I expect my Cabinet secretaries to make sure that that practice doesn't go forward. There needs to be independence."

Federal communications regulators earlier this month opened an investigation into whether Williams violated a ban on "payola" in promoting the education law.

Bush said, "We didn't know about this in the White House."

Asked what will happen to officials at the Education Department who made the decision to pay Williams, Bush said: "We've got new leadership going to the Department of Education."

White House domestic policy adviser Margaret Spellings is replacing Rod Paige as education secretary.

"But all our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying, you know, commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet," Bush said.

Williams has acknowledged that the Education Department's outside media firm paid $240,000 to a public relations company he owns to promote Bush's education act during a television show he owned and hosted.

U.S. law requires that radio or television stations, as well as individuals, disclose on air when they have received compensation to talk about a product or issue.

After the Education Department compensation became public, Williams admitted "poor judgment."

He said he had been a strong backer of the law and that he was not influenced by outside parties. Tribune Co.'s syndication unit, Tribune Media, has canceled his column.

He wasn't responsible for the incorrect intelligence that led to the war in Iraq. He wasn't responsible for the slander campaign against McCain in his first election or Kerry in his second. He wasn't responsible for many of the incorrect military decisions in Iraq (including Abu Gahrib). And now he isn't responsible for this fiasco.

So that means that he's either got an administration that's running amok, or he's lying, or BOTH.

Originally posted by pr1983
who gives these people jobs?

You, and me, and anyone else that votes. That's the sad part about this assbackwards country. There is no one to blame but ourselves. And while I know that some people, even on this forum, are proud of this news, it doesn't do much for the golden rule of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'

I voted for Bush! 🙂 I honestly don't care about the gay marriage issue, the stem cell/abortion issue or the christian propaganda issue. My main concern is not having my ass blown to pieces as a result of a terrorist attack.

oh dont worry. bush supporters dont blame a damn thing on him.
nothing is the president's fault. you know what? at this point i admire bush. only he can take probably the most stressful job on the planet and turn it into a freaking holiday. man if only nixon just played the stupid monkey routine he may have gotten away with watergate.

people are so brainwashed that dubya can do NO WRONG in their eyes. its just phenominal! i take my hat off to mr. bush. he is THE bullshit MASTER.

Originally posted by Draco69
I voted for Bush! 🙂 I honestly don't care about the gay marriage issue, the stem cell/abortion issue or the christian propaganda issue. My main concern is not having my ass blown to pieces as a result of a terrorist attack.

I have a feeling that that is because you bought into the propoganda that only GW could save us. Much like Jesus, don't you think?

Originally posted by PVS
oh dont worry. bush supporters dont blame a damn thing on him.
nothing is the president's fault. you know what? at this point i admire bush. only he can take probably the most stressful job on the planet and turn it into a freaking holiday. man if only nixon just played the stupid monkey routine he may have gotten away with watergate.

people are so brainwashed that dubya can do NO WRONG in their eyes. its just phenominal! i take my hat off to mr. bush. he is THE bullshit MASTER.

Hitler said it best: "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it"

Or, just read my sig. It's a quote from Hitler as well.

The Iraq War was necessary. Why? Because it would instill a democracy in the Middle East. This is the last thing the Middle East rulers want. Women in Afghanistan can vote. For the first time in 800 years they can actually vote. People in other Middle Eastern countries are ruled under an iron thumb. If they see people in Iraq with freedoms they could never dream of, guess what they'll do. They'll rebel. They'll rebel against their country's tryanny and attempt to overthrow their monarchs from their thrones. The Middle East has not changed for a thousand years. Kings, tyrants and corrupt governments. That's the way it's always been. The Middle East leaders want to keep their power and their money. So they will do whatever they can to stop America from creating democracy in Iraq. Ever wonder why so many soldiers are dying this week? It's because it's election week. A democratic leader will be chosen. The other countries don't want this. They know that if Iraq becomes a democracy. The people in the other countries will want the same.

I personally don't like Bush. But he's the best chance we got compared to UN-pu*** Kerry.

Originally posted by Draco69
The Iraq War was necessary. Why? Because it would instill a democracy in the Middle East. This is the last thing the Middle East rulers want. Women in Afghanistan can vote. For the first time in 800 years they can actually vote. People in other Middle Eastern countries are ruled under an iron thumb. If they see people in Iraq with freedoms they could never dream of, guess what they'll do. They'll rebel. They'll rebel against their country's tryanny and attempt to overthrow their monarchs from their thrones. The Middle East has not changed for a thousand years. Kings, tyrants and corrupt governments. That's the way it's always been. The Middle East leaders want to keep their power and their money. So they will do whatever they can to stop America from creating democracy in Iraq. Ever wonder why so many soldiers are dying this week? It's because it's election week. A democratic leader will be chosen. The other countries don't want this. They know that if Iraq becomes a democracy. The people in the other countries will want the same.

I personally don't like Bush. But he's the best chance we got compared to UN-pu*** Kerry.

The "middle east democracy domino theory" is as ridiculous as the "southeastern asia communism domino theory" that was the working principle behind the U.S. justification for the Vietnam conflict.

Vietnam becoming communist did not result in communism spreading though the rest of southeast asia and Iraq becoming a democracy is not going to result in the democracy spreading through the rest of the middle east.

"White House Uses Gay Tax Money to Fund Anti-Gay Propoganda"
That doesn't make any sense! 😂

Someone needs to correct that title! 😉

That's your opinion. But this entire ordeal is much bigger than just the Middle East. France, Italy, China and Russia are also involved. There are Russian snipers attacking troops in Iraq. Why? Because Russia has oil money in the Middle East. China is against the Middle East because Islam tends to turn their people against them. France also has oil money in Iraq. The picture is bigger than it seems.

Comparing Vietnam and Iraq is completely the wrong way to go.

The Iraq War was necessary. Why? Because it would instill a democracy in the Middle East. This is the last thing the Middle East rulers want. Women in Afghanistan can vote. For the first time in 800 years they can actually vote. People in other Middle Eastern countries are ruled under an iron thumb. If they see people in Iraq with freedoms they could never dream of, guess what they'll do. They'll rebel. They'll rebel against their country's tryanny and attempt to overthrow their monarchs from their thrones. The Middle East has not changed for a thousand years. Kings, tyrants and corrupt governments. That's the way it's always been. The Middle East leaders want to keep their power and their money. So they will do whatever they can to stop America from creating democracy in Iraq. Ever wonder why so many soldiers are dying this week? It's because it's election week. A democratic leader will be chosen. The other countries don't want this. They know that if Iraq becomes a democracy. The people in the other countries will want the same.

Aside from the fact that WMD's were not found. And acknowledging the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, was a secular gov't opposed to fundamental Islam, and posed absolutley zero tactical threat to the united states. And Considering that every reason Bush gave to go into Iraq was a lie in the first place and the region has been further destabilized, I don't think the war was necessary. And being as that the majority of the population will not be voting (no matter what the press tells you) and that little if any Sunni's will be voting. The gov't that will be put in place will hardly be democratic.

The idea that other middle eastern countries are going to see how great everything is going in Iraq and want to be a part of that is laughable. If people had wanted a democracy so badly they would have fought for it long ago.

Draco, your outlook on this issue does not seem to have been tempered with trying to see how different middle eastern cultures and values are from north american ones.