WASHINGTON, April 25, 2015 — David Brock, the perpetually angry devotee of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, described the news-making author of an upcoming Hillary exposé, Peter Schweizer, as a hateful, right-wing political hack. He noted that Schweizer’s Government Accountability Initiative (that exposes wasteful government spending) receives funding from the Donor Trust, “which is a [conservative] Koch brothers pass-through, so it’s subsidized by Hillary Clinton’s enemies,” he told MSNBC’s Morning Joe.
Brock is a one-man media “watchdog” dedicated to “exposing” the vast, right-wing conspiracies among America’s corporate media – like the conniving, tea-party Republican editorial writers at the New York Times, who, along with Fox News, are “chasing promotional deals with the author,” said Brock.
The 1998 book, which, among other things, chronicled the “gay subculture that is today blossoming at Disney,” was Schweizer’s prescient observation of the Disney Corp.’s place in the culture wars, which even the Atlantic magazine acknowledged.
In a piece pertaining to themes in Disney’s animated hit film Frozen, the Atlantic’s entertainment reporter Akash Nikolas wrote, “Through both its corporate practices and content of its films, Disney for decades has implemented the so-called ‘gay agenda’ – which is to say, helping make the world a more accepting place.”
Getting back to Brock, he told MSNBC, “The betrayal here [Schwiezer’s book]… is that Disney’s policies are to treat their gay employees fairly and to allow visitors to the park. I’m gay, and I think that’s wrong, I think it’s cruel and I think it’s hateful.”
It was at this point MSNBC correspondent Mark Halperin interrupted. “Should we be focused on the truth or lack of truth of what he [Schwiezer] is saying [about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s finances] rather than running through his bio?” asked Halperin.
“For instance, your bio is something that some people consider controversial. But when you put ideas forward, we like to just talk about the ideas you’re putting forward, not revisit everything you’ve ever done,” said Halperin.
Read Also: New York Times fears Clinton retribution
Halperin hoisted Brock on his own petard by referring to his journalistic efforts of years gone by, in particular, his book attacking Anita Hill, who accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in her contentious Senate testimony and his bombshell reporting on “Troopergate” for the American Spectator, which alleged that Arkansas state troopers procured women for the promiscuous Bubba when he was governor.
It was during this period that Brock was both a conservative and a closeted gay.
In his confessional 2002 book Blinded by the Right, Brock said he feared his reporting on President Clinton’s gubernatorial sexcapades would anger liberal journalists to the point of “outing” him.
He feared an attack piece by New York Times columnist Frank Rich was one such effort. “It’s women, not liberals, who really get him [Brock] going,” wrote Rich. “The slightest sighting of female sexuality whips him into a frenzy of misogynist zeal.”
According to the paranoid Brock, “Rich didn’t say I was gay, he said I was a misogynist… a clichéd code word that a generation ago implied homosexual.”
Rich later told the Washington Post he had no idea Brock was gay.
His liberal friends continually ribbed Brock for being a conservative, nonplussed that a gay man could be a right-winger.
At this point Brock adds this surprisingly thoughtful insight:
“I did develop an internal dialogue about being a gay conservative, and it went something like this: Being conservatives, we valued modesty, we’d just as soon keep private matters private. We rejected the identity politics and victimology of the left. We did not see ourselves as part of a group with the same set of politics and interests, but rather as individuals who happened to be gay. Just as some of us, as the cliché went, happened to be left-handed. Why should what you do in bed have anything to do with your position on marginal tax rates?”
Brock’s thinking is a lot less lucid since he moved to the political dark side.
Otherwise, it might occur to him that Peter Schweizer’s book exposing Clinton family finances has nothing to do with the gay agenda, which by all accounts is on the verge of winning the culture wars.
Marriage has been redefined in many states, with a Wall Street Journal poll finding 72 percent of respondents age 18 to 34 in support of same-sex marriage. Disney’s gay agenda-themed entertainment has certainly paid dividends.
And Mozilla Corp.’s CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced to resign in 2014 after it was disclosed he contributed $1,000 to California’s pro-Proposition 8 campaign. The initiative amending the state constitution said, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Although the amendment passed with 52 percent of the vote, 29 justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled it unconstitutional.
Eich lost his job for believing he had a right to participate in, well, participatory democracy, and believing in the “self-evident truth” that he was “created equal” and had a right to define marriage in the political arena like the next guy.
Instead, the will of a few was imposed on California’s 39.3 million citizens. A wanton act of political rape.
According to the Huffington Post, “A Democratic operative flagged the same [Peter Schweizer Disney] book” as did Brock. “There is nothing particularly shrewd to this type of pushback,” said the Huffington Post. “If the book’s message is bad, you attack the messenger, smearing if need be. But what stands out is how quickly the gears started turning. Clinton’s universe of operatives have had practice at this.”
And not surprisingly, it’s this creepy, totalitarian, sexually charged modus operandi that David Brock employs to defend the creepy and corrupt Clintons.Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.