Remember those rumors we use to hear about re: Hill’s sexual orientation while Billary occupied the WH? Well it seems those rumors are finally coming home to roost. It appears that a super big story may hit the air waves soon exposing Hillary’s sexual orientation. It’s about time! The LA Times is sitting on proof of this little known DC secret, but they are not reporting it because they are scared about the repercussions. Last time I was in journalism school, which was a zillion years ago, we were taught to report the facts, not sit on facts cuz we were fraidie cats. I guess Times have changed. No pun intended!

Aahh, heck, it doesn’t matter if Hill gets outed by a gay sex scandal. The Modern Progressives don’t care about that. It’s only scandalous if you’re a Republican gay! So the LA Times have nothing to concern their little empty heads about!

UPDATE I: The libs are all upset about this latest report. I’m confused why when it’s their very own gays who are outing Hill. What’s the prob?

UPDATE II: For balance sake, I provide this link , however, we’re suppose to trust the fifth column now? Don’t forsake reading the comments, too. They’re pretty funny!

~~~

The Commie rag Village Voice reported last August:

As I recently said on MONICA CROWLEY’s radio show, whisper campaigns are claiming that HILLARY CLINTON is GAYLE KING–ing her aide de camp, the glamorous HUMA ABEDIN, an Indian/Pakistani goddess from Kalamazoo, Michigan. In other words, Hillary may be putting Huma out there in the press and purposely making her more visible as a pre-emptive strike that amounts to her hiding in plain sight. This way, no Republican can later say, “Who is this gorgeous babe who spends so much intimate time with Hillary that the Observer called her Hill’s ‘body person’? Was GENNIFER FLOWERS’s book right about Hillary’s sexual taste?” And does either of this couple have the balls to bottom?

Of course that whole scenario can’t possibly be true, since Bill and Hill have been so lovey-dovey lately for the cameras, and besides, whenever he’s been serviced by an intern—or by anyone—he’s clearly been thinking of his wife. (They’re that close.) But suddenly, Huma—a sort of Muslim SALMA HAYEK—has that spread in Vogue and the accompanying write-up notes that she “oversees every minute of Senator Clinton’s day.” Every single minute? Even Gayle King takes a break now and then! (PS: If I called for comment, Hillary’s camp would surely say, “Just because two powerful women are closer than sardines doesn’t make them dykes.” And that’s so true. Look at MATT and BEN. But now that Crowley has dubbed me the head of Huma Resources, I’m going to pursue this story with every cojone I’ve got.)

A straight Democrat—sorry, that’s a segue—DNC head HOWARD DEAN, guest-starred at a “Democrats and Donuts with Dean” event in Fire Island, where there was no worry that he might outscream the screaming queens. But I was told that press attendees couldn’t write up the event, so I’ll shut up here and only say that at another point in the weekend, I told one Pines Democrat the Hillary/Huma scenario and he deadpanned, “That’s a step up from DONNA SHALALA.”

~~~

Now that you have that bit of news the current story is that the LA Times is holding onto this information because apparently they think the are in a pickle. Do we print this story, or do we keep it quiet? So much for neutral unbiased reporting! Before you read the next piece realize Ron doesn’t come out and say it’s Hill, but they (everyone who’s anyone in DC) all know who this major presidential candidate is!

Shocking Inside DC Scandal Rumor: A Media Ethics Dilemma

by Ron Rosenbaum.com

So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. “Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. “Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me )not an LAT person) knows I write and didn’t say “don’t write about this”.

If it’s true, I don’t envy the LAT. I respect their hesitation, their dilemma, deciding to run or not to run it raises a lot of difficult journalism ethics questions and they’re likely to be attacked, when it comes out—the story or their suppression of the story—whatever they do.
I’ve been sensing hints that something’s going on, something’s going unspoken in certain insider coverage of the campaign (and by the way this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before. By the way, t’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else.

And when my source said “everyone in Washington”, knows about it he means everyone in the elite Mainstream media, not just the LA Times, but everyone regularly writing about the Presdidential campaign knows about it and doesn’t know what to do with it. And I must admit it really is was juicy if true. But I don’t know if it’s true and I can’t decide if I think it’s relevant. But the fact that “everyone” in the elite media knew about it and was keeping silent about it, is, itself, news. But you can’t report the “news” without reporting the thing itself. Troubling!

It raises all sorts of ethical questions. What about private sexual behavior is relevant? What about a marriage belongs in the coverage of a presidential campaign? Does it go to the judgment of the candidate in question? Didn’t we all have a national nervous breakdown over these questions nearly a decade ago?

Now, as I say it’s a rumor; I haven’t seen the supporting evidence. But the person who told me said it offhandedly as if everyone in his world knew about it. And if you look close enough you can find hints of something impending, something potentially derailing to this candidate in the reporting of the campaign. Which could mean that something unspoken, unwritten about is influencing what is written, what we read.

Why are well wired media elite keeping silent about it? Because they think we can’t handle the truth? Because they think it’s substantively irrelevant? What standards of judgment are they using? Are they afraid that to print it will bring on opprobrium. Are they afraid not printing it will bring on opprobrium? Or both?

But alas if it leaks out from less “responsible” sources. then all their contextual protectiveness of us will have been wasted.

And what about timing? They, meaning the DC elite media, must know if it comes out before the parties select their primary winners and eventual nominees, voters would have the ability to decide how important they felt it to the narrative of the candidate in question. Aren’t they, in delaying and not letting the pieces fall where they potentially may, not refusing to act but acting in a different way—taking it upon themselves to decide the Presidential election by their silence?

If they waited until the nominees were chosen wouldn’t that be unfair because, arguably, it could sink the candidacy of one of the potential nominees after the nomination was finalized? And doesn’t the fact that they “all” know something’s there but can’t say affect their campaign coverage in a subterranean, subconscious way that their readers are excluded from?

I just don’t know the answer. I’m glad in a situation like this, if there is in fact truth to it, that I wouldn’t have to be the “decider”. I wouldn’t want to be in a position of having to make that choice. But it’s a choice that may well decide a crucial turning point in history. Or maybe not: Maybe voters will decide they don’t think it’s important, however juicy. But should it be their choice or the choice of the media elites? It illustrates the fact that there are still two cultures at war within our political culture, insiders and outsiders. As a relative outsider I have to admit I was shocked not just by this but by several other things “everyone” down there knows.

There seem to be two conflicting imperatives here. The new media, Web 2.0 anti-elitist preference for transparency and immediacy and the traditional elitist preference for reflection, judgment and standards—their reflection, their small-group judgment and standards. Their civic duty to “protect” us from knowing too much.

I feel a little uneasy reporting this. No matter how well “nailed” they think they have it, it may turn out to be untrue. What I’m really reporting on is the unreported persistence of a schism between the DC media elites and their inside knowlede and the public that is kept in the dark. For their own good? Maybe they’d dismiss it as irrelevant, but shouldn’t they know?

I don’t know.

Tags: Communism, Conservative, Demoncrap take over 2008?, HitlaryCare, I did not have sex with that woman!, Looney Left Lies, Muslim, Presidential Elections, State-Sponsored Media, Treasonous Presidents, Treasonous Senators, Uncategorized