ABC Continues Its Leftist Propagandist Hack Ways With Its Biased Distortion Of News And Its Sloppy Journalism

A Nexis database search reveals that there are at least 18 individuals in the Aurora, Colorado area named “James Holmes.” Yet Brian Ross managed to pick out just one of these 18 to cite—the one who is a member of the Tea Party—without first checking to see if this was the same person as the shooter.

What are the odds of that?

You need to understand: ABC didn’t google “James Holmes Aurora”; they googled “James Holmes Aurora tea party”.  They NEVER would have googled “James Holmes Democrat” or “James Holmes OWS” and ran with that connection if one turned up (there actually WAS a registered Democrat named “James Holmes,” for what it’s worth).

The dishonesty of the media is beyond parallel unless you go to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. 

Was the error corrected?  Yeah, and it didn’t even take that long, thanks to the fact that today, unlike in the fairly recent past, we’ve got Fox News and we’ve got a lot of dedicated bloggers who at least try to correct the avalanche of lies the mainstream media tells in the guise of “reporting.”  But this is like the sixth time the mainstream media has falsely charged the Tea Party with some awful crime.  And they know how the game works: it doesn’t matter if the story is true and it doesn’t matter if the story has to be “corrected”; what matters is that over and over and over the media insinuates that the tea party is somehow “dangerous” and the fecal matter that they keep throwing at it sticks in the public perception. That question by the falsely accused, slandered man, “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?” is what the press is banking on.  Because part of the infamous “Big Lie” strategy was to tar their targets with such a climate of doubt that, even if each individual accusation proved to be untrue, the professional propagandists knew that the sheer weight of negative attack would ultimately culminate in affecting the perception of the people.

Shameful, ABC NEWS (Brian Ross & Stephanopoulos) Do No Investigative Journalism But a Google Search, But Jump to Conclusion that Datk Night Shooter James Holmes Linked to Colorado Tea Party Patriots … Never Contacted Tea Party, Gets it Wrong, ABC News Backtracks & Apologizes

SHAMEFUL, SIMPLY SHAMEFUL BUT WE HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO IT FROM THE LIBERAL, BIAS MSM …

Exactly what part about investigative journalism do Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos not understand? The liberal lame stream media was so quick to jump to a conclusion that James Holmes, the ‘Dark Night’ shooter who killed 12 movie go’ers last night and injured 70 while going on his shooting rampage in Aurora, Colorado. So if ABC News did not know it was the same Jim Holmes and did not try to confirm it, why would they have reported it? Can you say liberal irresponsible journalism?

 

ABC News has suggested that James Holmes — the suspect in today’s shooting in Aurora, Colorado — may have a connection to the Tea Party.

ABC’s Brian Ross reported this morning that there is “a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site… talking about him joining the Tea Party last year.”

“Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes,” Ross cautioned “but it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”

Great investigative journalism ABC, how difficult could it really have been to have called the the Colorado Tea Party to confirm that it was the same Jim Holmes? But no, you media hacks were salivating and wanted to believe it was a Tea Party member so that you could rail against them. Do you people have any conscience? Obviously you have no journalistic integrity. This is the extent of ABC News investigation, a google search that got them the following web page. Not one call or email to the Colorado Tea Party Patriots to confirm that it was the same individual. Nope, no second source by ABC, they just went to the accusation hoping they were correct. As stated at Breitbart.com. what else would we expect from a corrupt media complex with a political agenda?

On Good Morning America, ABC News’ Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos suggested that the Tea Party might be connected to the mass shootings early this morning in an Aurora, CO theater during a screening of the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. The mainstream media attempted to blame the Tea Party for the Tuscon shootings in January 2011, shortly after Republicans swept the midterm elections. Now, in the critical 2012 elections, the mainstream media seems poised to do the same–and ABC News has led the way.

Here is the exchange between Brian Ross and George Stephanolpoulos:

Stephanolpoulos: I’m going to go to Brian Ross. You’ve been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant.

Ross: There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

Stephanolpoulos: Okay, we’ll keep looking at that. Brian Ross, thanks very much.

So what was the result of ABC’s irresponsible journalism … they made 54 year old Jim Holme’s life a living hell. They never once attempted to contact him on his web page to see if they had the wrong person. That would have been too much effort. Why know they truth when you can smear the Tea Party?

What kind of idiot makes that kind of statement?” Holmes told TheDC. “Really, seriously, how do we take a journalist seriously when it’s pretty clear they really haven’t done any sort of check on their facts?”

Holmes has the unfortunate coincidence of sharing a similar name with James Holmes, the 24-year-old accused of going on a rampage during a midnight showing of the “Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colo., early Friday morning.

Because of this, ABC News reporter Brian Ross, appearing on “Good Morning America” on Friday, suggested the suspect could be a member of the tea party, citing the fact that “there’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site.”

But Ross had the wrong guy: The tea partier he was referring to is this 52-year-old former law enforcement officer. ABC News was forced to apologize online.

Holmes told TheDC that ABC News didn’t call him before going to air and he still hasn’t heard from them or received a direct apology. “No, not a thing,” he said.

ABC News would later apologize for their rush to judgement and poor reporting. However, their initial apology was hardly one at all. ABC News stated, tried to spread the blame around to “social media” and “members of the public”.

An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. Several other local residents with similar names were also contacted via social media by members of the public who mistook them for the suspect.

Wait, after the firestorm from their screw up, ABC finally admits their fault of outing the wrong Jim Holmes and that they never vetted the story. It’s not that you failed to vet a story, you creating journalistic malpractice.

Editor’s Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.

Wanna see what happens when you use ABC’s Brian Ross methodology of investigative journalism? From Glenn Beck come brilliant satire … Why does ABC New have employed an individual arrested for murder and sending sexually explicit photos and tests to teen girls? Hmm?

Charge one: Chris Davis was brutally killed and murdered he was found facedown in his pool. Brian Ross has been arrested for the killing of Chris Davis

Charge Two: Brian Ross sent explicit photos and text messages to two teenage girls

I looked the last two charges up.  It’s true.  Brian Ross really DID send explicit photos and text messages to two teenage girls:

FONTANA: Random texter asked little girls for photos and sex, police say
BY RICHARD BROOKS The Press Enterprise STAFF WRITER
Published: 19 March 2012 11:46 AM

Explicit photos and text messages to two girls has landed a 37-year-old Mentone man in jail on suspicion of sex-related charges, according to Fontana police and jail records.

Brian John Ross was arrested at 5:35 p.m. Thursday at Sierra and Merrill avenues in Fontana and booked on suspicion of contacting a minor and arranging to meet with a minor via the Internet for the purpose of having sex, jail records show. His bail is $50,000.

On March 13, a 10-year-old Fontana girl received a text message from a man who would later identify himself as a 38-year-old named “Brian,” police said in a written statement.

Brian sent the girl a face shot along with a photo of himself exposed, according to the statement.

“Brian asked (the girl) to send him pictures of herself,” according to the statement.

Similar text messages were sent to the girl’s 13-year-old cousin from Redlands.

And, yes, it seems that it Brian Ross is not just a child molester, but a murderer:

5 arrested in connection with St. Albans pool death
Posted: Jun 28, 2012 8:02 AM PDT Updated: Jul 01, 2012 2:01 PM PDT
By Matt Henson

ST. ALBANS, Vt. – Thursday morning, St. Albans Police started rounding up suspects in the death of Christopher Davis, 22.

“Chris grew up with all of these people, they were friends his whole life, he trusted them,” said Samanthajo Assisi, Davis’ girlfriend.

Police say on March 21, Travis Bugbee and Brian Ross, both 23, of St. Albans, lured Davis to the city swimming pool in a plot to rob him. When Davis arrived, the two men allegedly kicked and beat him, took Davis’ money, drugs and other items he was carrying.

“He might have owed people some money for drugs, not these people, and that might be common knowledge,” St. Albans Police Chief Gary Taylor said.

Davis’ body was found in the pool a few weeks later.

ABC’s Brian Ross ought to be fired – either for being a murderous child molester or maybe just for being a sloppy propagandist posing as a “journalist.”  George Stephanopoulos – who began his career as a Democrat media spinmeister – ought to be fired for his key participation in Brian Ross’ “journalism.”

There have been at least 7,379 Occupy arrests (see also here).  Versus basically ZERO for the Tea Party.  And yet the media long ago “decided” that the Tea Party was dangerous and the Occupy Wall Street movement was NOT dangerous out of their leftist propagandist bias.

“ABC News” is an oxymoron.

ABC News Falsely Blames Tea Party For Aurora, CO Shooting; Left Falsely Blames Rush Limbaugh.

ABC News once again documented how biased and prepared to immediately blame the Tea Party for whatever nut happens to come along and shoot a bunch of people.  They were wrong.  And you have to wonder what would have happened had Fox News wrongly demonized a minority the way ABC did in coming up with the wrong “James Holmes” as well as the wrong political affiliation.  The mainstream media was just as quick to demonize conservatives when Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords and killed several people.  And, you guessed it, they were wrong, too.  Because if anything the whackjob a.k.a. Jared Loughner was a Bush-hating liberal.  And then a Democrat who had actually been wounded at the shooting documented which side was really the violent side by issuing a death-threat against a Tea Party spokesman.

The one thing – the ONLY thing – that the left truly does well is blame and demonize. 

These people don’t need “facts.”  They can just make them up as they go along:

Left blames Aurora shooting on Rush Limbaugh
Posted at 9:11 am on July 20, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

de Groot@punchdouble

I wonder if the Aurora shooting has anything to do with Rush Limbaugh’s comments on TDKR. I surely wouldn’t be surprised.

20 Jul 12

Some Twitter users are speculating that the Aurora, Colo., shooter was inspired by comments made by Rush Limbaugh. The shooting occurred at a midnight premiere of the movie, “The Dark Knight Rises.” On Tuesday July 17, Limbaugh said on his radio show that the name of the villain in the movie is a thinly-veiled dig at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

RUSH: Have you heard this new movie, the Batman movie, what is it, The Dark Knight Lights Up or whatever the name is. That’s right, Dark Knight Rises. Lights Up, same thing. Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in The Dark Knight Rises is named Bane, B-a-n-e. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran and around which there’s now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time. The release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental that the name of the really vicious fire breathing four eyed whatever it is villain in this movie is named Bane?

Hannah Hnida@14tigersis14

Prayers with the families of all the dead and wounded in Aurora, Colorado. #getyourheadouttayourass Rush Limbaugh, you are an evil man.

20 Jul 12

L J@jakecovo

Hannity beck limbaugh paraphernalia Found at aurora shooters home

20 Jul 12

@mbchampagne

Just got to see #Aurora. Is this connected to Limbaugh?—
Michelle (@mbchampagne) July 20, 2012

20 Jul 12

Jelaci Jaxun@Jelaci_Jaxun

“@GlobalGrind: BREAKING NEWS: We Pray! 14 Dead And 50 Wounded At Denver Movie Theater… bit.ly/OBXjPs“Rush Limbaugh connection?

20 Jul 12

Eric T. Tung@EricTTung 20 Jul 12

14 killed, 50 injured in Colorado theater: A gunman opened fire early today at a screening of the new B… erict.co/MNYUOb via @CNN

 

 

Jon Hardie@pocojuan

.@EricTTung Wondering about a connection between Rush Limbaugh’s Dark Knight Bane Diatribe & the Horrific Aurora Theater Shooting This AM

20 Jul 12

psychedelicatessen@MentalRiot

Makes you wonder if Rush Limbaugh’s Batman conspiracy against Bain Capital has anything to do w/ the Aurora shooting?

20 Jul 12

Gloria G. Brame@DrGloriaBrame

so very sad. I wonder what Rush Limbaugh will say today, considering how he incited hatred against the film fb.me/234b2nLam

20 Jul 12

PeacefulInfidel@PeacefulInfidel

I’m curious to know if this was triggered by Rush Limbaugh’s insanity. Heartbreaking. usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/…

20 Jul 12

Aarpoon Waify@Phnarrcissist

@maddow #Aurora #Shooting #TheDarkKnightRises #Bane #Bain #Limbaugh #Encitement ?

20 Jul 12

But it was Democrats — not Limbaugh — who first linked the “Dark Knight Rises” villain to Romney. This is from an article in The Washington Examiner published Monday July 16, the day before Limbaugh’s comments:

This summer’s much-anticipated Hollywood blockbuster, “The Dark Knight Rises,” is getting an unusual boost from Democrats and other foes of Mitt Romney who are eager to tie the Gotham crushing villain to the GOP presidential candidate. Their angle: the mask-wearing, “Venom” gas breathing bad guy has a name that sounds just like Romney’s former investment firm that President Obama has been blasting as a jobs killer.

“Bane” is the terrorist in the new movie who drives the caped crusader out of semi-retirement in the final Batman movie. Democrats, who believe they have Romney on the ropes over the president’s assault on his leadership at Bain Capital, said the comparisons are too rich to ignore.

“It has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood,” said Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. “Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society,” he added.

The left says that we need to take a day off from the political divide in honor of the Aurora tragedy – even as they drag politics into the tragedy in Aurora by turning the day into an “Let’s overturn the 2nd Amendment and ban guns” issue.  It doesn’t seem to matter that the most violent cities in America are ALL liberal cities with the most stringent gun laws.

Of course the left did the same thing during the Gabrielle Giffords shooting period.

You’d think at some point they would finally get tired of being wrong.  But nope; being wrong seems to energize them into even greater feats of being completely wrong.

Another Day Of Infamy: ABC’s Diane Sawyer And Vile Leftwing Pseudo-News Propaganda

Here’s the story:

ABC’s Sawyer Says Palin “Targeted” Gabby Giffords In Special On Congresswoman
Posted on November 15, 2011

In an hour-long special on Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Arizona) and her miraculous recovery, ABC’s Diane Sawyer ruined it in a segment about the Congresswoman’s political future.

Sawyer praised the Congresswoman as being “upbeat” during the “unsettling” 2010 campaign season in which she received “vitriol” from her constituents. Sawyer then linked these events to someone shooting her office door while including a sound of a gun being shot. Continuing, Sawyer says Giffords was “targeted” by Sarah Palin. Cue video of Palin speaking and the ad which had a cross-hair on Giffords’ district. Transcript below:

DIANE SAWYER: “So does Gabby Giffords really want to go back to Washington? Back where she was once called ‘the most positive person in Congress.’

“Staying upbeat, even during the unsettling campaigns of 2010. When we all watched opposition sometimes become vitriol. After she voted for health care, she faced people in her district calling her a ‘traitor,’ booing her in town halls.

[gun shot]

“Someone even fired a gun into her office door. And you may remember Sarah Palin targeted her district with an ad that had a gun sight on it.”

Allow me to tell you what I remember:

First and foremost, Sarah Palin did not use a “gun sight.”  That is a documented lie.  Sarah Palin used a surveyor’s symbol:

The icons placed on strategic Congressional districts throughout the U.S. were interpreted as cross hairs or gun sights. Devonia Smith at the Examiner says they’re neither; they’re surveyor’s symbols:

Now, aside from the fact that saying it this way makes Diane Sawyer a liar and a propagandist, I suppose it is true that calling it a “gun sight” rather than a “surveyor’s symbol” sounds more provacative.

Fact number two: If you want to know who has actually used “gun sights” to target their opposition, Ms. Sawyer, why didn’t you point out the Democratic Leadership Committee’s use of gun sights to target Republicans?

The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). I guess we could argue over whether the DLC counts as “senior party officials” but they’re certainly as much a part of the party as Palin who, after all, currently holds no elected office. …

Fact number three: Bob Beckell, liberal Democrat strategist, has long boasted that he created the targeted district concept.  Why didn’t you acknowledge that fact, Ms. Sawyer, you liberal propagandist witch???

But there’s a fourth fact that Diane Sawyer and ABC would have mentioned – given that they decided to drag Sarah Palin into this – if they had so much as a scintilla of integrity or objectivity in their little cockroach souls: Sarah Palin was by far and away the only one to “target” Gabrielle Giffords.  And the liberal who DID target Giffords also went so far as to say the words “she’s dead.”:

Update, January 9: I would like liberals who blame the “toxic rightwing rhetoric” for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords to respond to this little factoid:

The website Daily Kos has also deleted a diary about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords entitled “My Congresswoman Voted Against Pelosi, Now She’s Dead To Me,” but so far has not deleted a post by founder Markos Moulitsas that lists Giffords’ district among those on their “target list,” and noted that “Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.” (emphasis ours).

Please explain to me why Sarah Palin’s use of surveyor symbols or whichever angry conservative comments resulted in Gabrielle Giffords being shot rather than leftwingers putting her on their “bulls eye” “target list,” or influential liberals like Moulitsas saying that Giffords is “dead to me.” Because I’d really like to know.

If you click on the links, you will see that somebody wisely kept a record of the truth that the vile left dishonestly tried to purge.  Even as they shrilly demonized Sarah Palin for doing a tiny fraction of what they themselves had done.

Nobody is more responsible than our journalists for creating the hell that America has become.  As godawful as Democrats are, they have the right to be partisan.  Journalists have a constitutionally-imposed duty to serve as impartial watchdogs – and they decided to become leftwing propagandists instead in an act that poisoned this country with a constant barrage of carefully selected lies.

Why did Diane Sawyer decide to demonize Sarah Palin so unfairly and so divorced from factual reality?  Why did she go after Palin and refuse to go after Joe Biden (remember how Obama lectured us to be more civil in our language?)  And yet the very next day after Giffords’ was interviewd, Joe Biden said to unions:

“Folks, you fired the first shot.”

You know, rather like Jared Loughner fired the first shot into Gabrielle Giffords’ skull…

Why not bring something like that up instead?  You know, unless you are a far-left Joseph Goebbels-style propagandist???

Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) while he deceives billions of human beings into hell.  And these demonic minions of the mainstream media sweetly smile at you and lie like the hell they are filled with while they’re doing it.

If the media reported fairly, accurately and honestly, the Democrat Party would have gone the way of the Dodo bird a long time ago.  One day Diane Sawyer and all the “journalists” like her will burn in hell.

Rick Perry Has A ‘Big Black Cloud’ Of Biased Media Propaganda Hanging Over Him

Never forget, the mainstream media is biased and dishonest.  And they WILL NOT be fair or objective:

Ed Schultz: Rick Perry’s reference to a “big black cloud” was a racial crack at Obama, wasn’t it?
posted at 5:36 pm on August 16, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Larry O’Connor at Breitbart TV. As shameless as this is, it’s not the worst example of MSNBC playing games with video to support a favored racial narrative. Remember this classic of the genre? And it’s not just MSNBC in this case who took Perry out of context either. ABC’s account of what he said is even less fair than Schultz’s:

“Mr. President, you need to free up the employers of this country to create jobs.” Perry called on Obama to “free up this country” from “stifling regulation.”

“I’m a pro-business governor, I don’t make any apologies about it and I will be a pro-business president.”

Perry warned that a “big black cloud” hangs over the country.

“I think you want a president who is passionate about America — that’s in love with America.”

Sounds like he’s talking about Obama, right? Not so. Watch the clip, which includes extra footage added by O’Connor, and you’ll see that he was talking about the debt. In fact, that’s obvious to me even from the footage Schultz did air, which conveniently excludes the final part where Perry emphasizes that the “cloud” he’s referring to is our debt crisis. They might as well have left it in there, frankly: The beauty of the “dog whistle” accusation Schultz is making is that there’s no way to disprove it, even in full context. It’s a claim about what a speaker means, not what he actually says, so the fact that Perry’s clearly talking about the debt is no impediment. Schultz and his viewers know that Perry’s a secret racist and that he’s using code words to communicate subtextually with his racist audience, so all they have to do is look for words like “black” or “dark” and connect the dots, irrespective of what the speech is about. Short of figuring out a way to let the left read his mind, there’s no way Perry can prove that his intentions were innocent, which of course is precisely why they love love love this specie of demagoguery. We have 14 more months of this ahead of us. And trust me, Captain Civility will be very coy indeed about reining in his side when they start in with it full-bore.

Update: Can we at least set some ground rules about this before the campaign? I know that would defeat the left’s purpose of being able to declare any innocent turn of phrase racist and disqualifying as political circumstances require, but let’s see if we can pin them down. How about if they gave us a list of words that Perry shouldn’t use, ever, in any context? And if he stays away from those, no “dog whistle” accusations. Deal?

As rabid of a leftwing ideologue partisan as Ed Schultz is, ABC DEMONSTRATES THAT IT IS EVEN MORE RABIDLY BIASED.

Mediaite reported:

Rick Perry ‘Big Black Cloud’ Quote Edited Out Of Context By MSNBC And ABC News

GOP hopeful Gov. Rick Perry drew fire from some quarters earlier over a remark, reported by ABC News’ The Note blog, that “a ‘big black cloud’hangs over the country.”

As it turns out, Perry’s remark was much more specific. While he did use the phrase “big black cloud,” he was referring explicitly to the debt, as the full video of Perry’s remark reveals.

BreitbartTV’s Larry O’Connor tracked down the full video of Perry’s remarks (which Mediaite also requested of ABC News prior to our post on the subject), and compared it with an edited version that aired on Monday night’s The Ed Show.

[The videos appear here for comparison]

Now, Schultz could have aired the entire clip, and still tried to make the case that Perry’s remark was poorly chosen. Chopping the clip the way he did was dishonest and, at best, an oversell by a zealous partisan commentator.

But there is no excuse for ABC News’ reporters abridging Perry’s remark in that fashion. It was their reporting upon which April Ryan, and others, relied in forming their strong reactions to the quote, and not Schultz’s edited clip. It was the truncated, oddly-paraphrased fashion in which ABC reported his remark (“Perry warned that a ‘big black cloud’ hangs over the country”) which made me contact them (and Perry’s campaign) to check on the quote in the first place.

We also performed several searches for video of Perry’s remarks before publication, but found nothing.

Whatever your opinion of Governor Perry, politically or otherwise, he deserves to be quoted as fairly and completely as any other figure. Not to do so is inexcusable.

MSNBC “journalist” Chris Matthews shrilly says in his rabid fear that news organizations will turn over every imaginable stone to dig up dirt on Rick Perry.  Even if they have to invent stuff, apparently.  Some journalist researched Michelle Bachmann’s family tree back to the 19th century just to try to show that her ancestors settled “near Iowa” (rather than in Iowa).  And the sheer unadulterated outrage and frothing anger over these insignificant findings is really quite amazing.  Considering that these same “journalists” never bothered to look into Obama’s secrets – many of which are STILL hidden in the dark (etc. etc.)while the media steadfastly go through the trash of every Republican who might threaten their messiah.

Don’t ever forget that the mainstream media is thoroughly dishonest.

Liberals are dishonest hypocrites.  Both character deficiencies quintessentially define them.

P.S.  Don’t forget that the mainstream media is literally invested in Barack Obama.

Biased Mainstream Media Yet Again Proven To Be In The Tank For Obama, Democrats

A couple of links scream about the rabid left wing media bias.  The first:

Diane Sawyer Steals Hannity, Fox Credit on Wright
By Jeffrey Lord on 6.2.11 @ 8:59AM

It was so brazen it was amazing.

ABC Anchor Diane Sawyer sits across from Bill O’Reilly last night and casually says that ABC broke the story about the tapes featuring the sermons of now radioactive and decidedly ex-Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright.

“You’re talking to the network…Obama White House remembers this… that broke the Jeremiah Wright tapes.”

The implication?

ABC News was Johnny-on-the-spot on the story of then-Senator Obama’s now infamous — and ex — pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In March of 2008.

Remember that date. March — 2008. Here’s the link to the story, filed on March 13 by ABC’s Brian Ross

This remark came about in the course of a conversation with O’Reilly in which Sawyer, discussing the role of ABC News in the last presidential campaign, insisted that her network was not populated by liberals who tilted the news leftward. O’Reilly had cited a study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs on the network news coverage of the Obama-McCain campaign that showed the tilt in favorable coverage for Obama over McCain as follows:

Obama   McCain

CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56%   16%
ABC 57%   42%

ABC had fared best of the three broadcast networks, but the point of liberal media bias — the kind of reporting that dates as far back as the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon campaign — stood. So O’Reilly persisted.

And out popped the above statement on Jeremiah Wright.

Let’s be clear here. Sawyer used the word “tapes” — and strictly speaking she is correct.

The problem comes with the context — in which she is clearly trying to imply that ABC was the proverbial dog with a bone in uncovering the relationship of Wright to his famous congregant, and what the implications might be for the country if a man who sat in Wright’s pews for 20 years listening to Wright’s leftist political rants were elected president.

Bluntly put — this is poppycock.

The man — and the network — that did the background research on this was, yes indeed, Sean Hannity and Fox News.

On February 28, 2007 — over a full year before ABC first aired its Wright story — Hannity had located columnist Erik Rush, who had written an article on Senator Obama and his church. He put Rush on the air that night.

The very next night, Hannity had managed to corral Wright himself on his Fox show with liberal Alan Colmes. Here’s the clip.

Out poured the tale of Wright’s devotion to Black Liberation Theology and the radical writings of James Cone and Dwight Hopkins. From this initial work the connections of Wright to Louis Farrakhan and Libya’s Colonel Muammar Qaddafi were uncovered and more.

And on it went.

The role of ABC News here?

Zip, nada, zero.

And yet plain as can be, there sits Diane Sawyer, the anchor of ABC News, on the set of Fox’s O’Reilly Factortrying to pretend ABC was a prime mover in Hannity’s story — a Fox story that surely would never have seen the light of day anywhere had it not been for Hannity’s tenacity in digging it out and putting it on TV. And, as regular viewers will recall, being snickered at while doing it — snickering that stopped when Obama finally felt so much pressure on Wright he stopped going to the church and felt the need to publicly rebuke the man he had once said was like an “uncle” to him.

Ms. Sawyer insisted her network would be providing “fantastic coverage” of the 2012 race, citing the liberal ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos as a key member of her team.

If this is an example of the work to come from ABC News on the 2012 presidential campaign… well, we report, you decide.

The second:

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Back of the Book” segment  tonight: As we reported last night, elements of the national liberal media have  begun their campaign to re-elect President Obama. The attacks on Fox News are  being stepped up, and we used an example of NBC News correspondent Andrea  Mitchell deriding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for criticizing Mr.  Obama.

Here now to talk about the Obama advantage in the media, Fox News political  analyst Charles Krauthammer, who is in Washington this evening. So how much of  an advantage? Because in my lifetime covering politics, 35 years now, I’ve never  seen a media as rabidly invested in a president as the liberal national media is  in Mr. Obama. Have you?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I  think that is true, and you can see it in a Pew study, Pew Center for Excellence  in Journalism that they did in 2008 election. They found that of the three cable  networks, Fox played it absolutely right down the middle, the same amount of  favorability to McCain as to Obama. CNN three times as favorable to Obama as to  McCain; MSNBC 5 to 1. So, I mean, and that was four years ago. Interesting, to  give you an idea of how biased the media is, when it issued a press release on  that study, Bill, it played it as CNN was the cable norm, with MSNBC on one side  and Fox on the other deviating from the norm. The norm being the pro-Obama bias  of CNN, rather than the norm that any objective American would say, which is  what Fox has done, which was to play it right down the middle.

O’REILLY: Sure. Now, there was another study done by the  Center for Media and Public Affairs that showed the network broadcasts — CBS,  ABC and NBC — were 68 percent positive for Obama, Senator Obama, then-Senator  Obama, 32 percent negative. For John McCain, it was the reverse: 36 positive, 64  negative. So, my contention is that nothing is going to change this time around.  That the national TV media and the big urban newspapers, like The New York  Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, will all be trying to get  President Obama re-elected. So the question then becomes: How much of an  advantage is it for the president?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it’s a major advantage, but you’ve got to  remember this. The left, the Democrats always have the press on their side.  They’ve had it for 40 years. Nonetheless, the Republicans have won the  presidency seven out of the last 11 elections, and that’s because what  Republicans have, what conservatives have is the country, which is a  center-right country, has remained so almost unchangingly for four decades. So  what the media bias does is it slightly — it gives an advantage. It’s a major  advantage, but it’s undoing the deficit that Democrats and liberals already have  because it’s a country that is not essentially conducive to a liberal  message.

And as bad as it appears to be with the tilt in favorable coverage for liberal Barack Obama for, well, somewhat less liberal John McCain – (and here is the result of the study again):

Obama   McCain

CBS 73% 31%
NBC 56%   16%
ABC 57%   42%

– I believe it is actually FAR worse than that.

The reason I say that is there’s an implicit assumption that isn’t true; namely, that both John McCain and Barack Obama had exactly the same negative baggage or positive qualities.  As an example, if Tom and Dick had pretty much the exact same record, and the press covered Dick more favorably than Tom, you’d certainly be able to show bias.

But what if Dick had a long history of radical associations, beginning with communist Frank Marshall Davis, and including racist un-American bigots such as Jeremiah Wright and terrorists such as William Ayers?  What if Dick had all the political baggage of a Chicago thug, including dirty deals with criminal scumbags such as Tony Rezko?  What if Dick’s wife had all KINDS of dirty baggage?  What if Dick could be documented to have a radical history of being a communist?  Just as a couple of examples?  Would it be fair or legitimate to expect the coverage to be evenly “favorable” versus “unfavorable,” or would FAIR and OBJECTIVE coverage have skewed dramatically against Dick???

In the case of Barack Obama, the guy who deserved virtually ALL the negative coverage got virtually NONE.  Versus war hero John McCain who should have received very little unfavorable coverage and got virutally nothing BUT???

And that same overwhelming media bias that got Obama an undeserved victory and the presidency in 2008 is just as biased today in defending the failure’s record.

Liberal Bill Maher First Points Out Obama A Hypocrite; Then Reveals That He Himself Is An Idiot

I don’t know.  The fact that (former Clinton spindoctor) George Stephanopoulos left ABC’s “This Week,” and now they are bringing vile turds like Bill Maher, can’t bode well for ABC’s flagship political program.

Still, it WAS nice watching Maher get owned by George Will:

Even Politifact, which is reliably to the left, had to point out that someone had scooped out whatever brains Bill Maher had begun his sorry life with and filled his hollow skull with doggy doo-doo:

In 2008, Brazil ranked No. 7 on the list of the world’s countries that consume the most oil, using about 2.5 million barrels per day. In first place was the United States at 19.5 million barrels per day, followed by China, Japan, India, Russia, and Germany, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Brazil also produces a lot of oil through drilling near its coasts. In recent years, Brazil’s state-controlled energy company Petrobras announced a major new find of oil in some of the deepest waters where exploration is conducted, some 7,000 feet below in the Atlantic Ocean. The find is expected to make Brazil even more important in the oil export business. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that Brazil will become a net exporter of oil this year, even before the new fields are tapped.

Getting back to our factcheck, Maher was likely remembering Brazil’s aggressive efforts to promote ethanol, and certainly Brazil has outpaced the United States in getting flexible fuel vehicles on the road. But Maher said, “Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years.” Actually, Brazil still consumes a great deal of oil. It’s also embarking on more offshore drilling in some of the deepest waters for exploration. Brazil is hardly “off oil.” So we rate Maher’s statement False.

Of course, I would submit that Politifact was in the difficult position of having to denounce Maher’s lies to protect Obama’s lies.

Now, what Maher said about Obama being a hypocrite, and making a bunch of bogus promises he didn’t even try to live up to, that part was true.

That BP platform that blew up and created the biggest ecological disaster in US history?  Obama signed off on that; it was his baby.

And why would Obama have signed off on that project?  And why would he have taken BP’s word that everything was okay until it was beyond obvious it wasn’t?  That one’s easy, too.  Because Barry Hussein was the BIGGEST recipient of campaign donations from British Petroleum, aka BP, that’s why.

That’s right.  Barry Hussein, the man who arrogantly promised to lower the oceans and heal the planet, is the guy who got bought off by BP, is the guy who signed off on the disastrous BP project, is the guy who waited WAY too long to deal with the building disaster, and is the man responsible for the biggest ecological disaster in American history.

66% of Independents Say Obama A Leftist – And What That Means

By a two-to-one margin, independents are saying that Obama is a leftist.  And only 14% of unaffiliated voters say they are more liberal than Obama.  And for those independents who have strongly made up their mind one way or the other, the margin dramatically increases to a six-to-one margin believing that Obama is a leftist.

For a story like this, we need to go back a little further, when we found out that Barry Hussein was THE most polarizing president in history:

In his first two months in office, President Barack Obama has succeeded in widening the political gulf among Americans more than any other president in modern history, according to a new poll. The “partisan gap” between Republicans and Democrats is 10 points larger than it was under George W. Bush.

The gulf – between Democrats and Republicans who say President Obama is succeeding – is also showing signs of further widening, according to a new Pew Research poll.

And widen it did.  It’s not just Republicans who overwhelmingly disapprove of Obama; it’s independents.  It’s the unaffiliated voters who now understand that Barack Obama misrepresented himself when he claimed he was a centrist who wanted what they wanted.

66% Of Independents Say Obama Is To Their Left
By Ed Carson
Tue., March 09, ’10

Supporters like to portray President Obama and his agenda as centrist. But those actually in the political center beg to differ. In fact, 66% of independents say their ideology is to the right of Obama, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll. Just 14% say they’re more liberal.

Independents:

• Oppose Obama’s handling of the economy by 2-to-1. Among those with strong opinions, disapproval soars to 6-to-1 — 30% vs. 5%.
• On health care, 53% disapprove vs. 23% who approve. 35% say Obama’s doing an unacceptable job vs. just 9% who give him an A.
• 55% have a dim view of Obama on the budget. Just 17% who like his work. They strongly disapprove 34%-6%.

(Among all respondents, results were generally slightly less negative due to strong Democratic support for the president.)

These issues feed off each other. Obama and the Democratic Congress have spent vast sums on bailouts and a mammoth stimulus that are driving deficits to truly unsustainable levels. Ordinary Americans haven’t seen much benefit because job losses continue and unemployment remains near 10%.

But Democrats still haven’t made the economy their top issue. Instead, they spend their time and political capital on health care, even though voters have signaled they don’t like Democrats’ health plans.

That’s inspired and fueled the fast-growing Tea Party movement. A February IBD/TIPP poll showed 75% of independents favor that movement.

41% of Americans say they are more likely to oppose a candidate that supports the current health care bill, according to the IBD/TIPP poll. Just 27% say they would be more apt to vote for that person. Among independents, the ratio is 2-to-1 against.

These are all chilling results for Democrats facing re-election. How many from moderate districts will lash themselves to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s mast?

As for Obama’s overall approval rating, the IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index dipped 0.2 point in March to 50, split between approval and disapproval. That’s down from 71 in February 2009, just after he took office.

Meanwhile, the IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index fell 3% in March to 45.4, the lowest in a year.

IBD/TIPP conducted the national telephone poll of 903 adults from March 1 to March 7.

And what’s the result of all of this?

A substantial majority of Americans now believe that the massive government this leftist president is trying to create represents a threat to their rights:

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens’ rights
Posted: February 26th, 2010 09:00 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken – though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what’s broken can be fixed.

So we find that 66% of independents believe that Obama is to their left, and 63% of independents believe that the government Obama is presiding over is a threat to their rights.  See the near perfect dovetailing?

What we are seeing is one of the most cynical and disingenuous presidents in American history attempt to establish himself as transcending political divides while simultaneously demagoguing and demonizing his opposition in a manner this generation has never seen.  And the mainstream media have broadcast his political narrative in a way very reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels broadcasting the narrative of his party.

Fortunately, this fascist technique hasn’t worked.  Mainstream media news outlets such as ABC, NBC and CBS are imploding:

The American mainstream media has been on a collision course with reality for several years.  It appears the day of reckoning has arrived as both ABC News and CBS News make announcements today that indicate deep financial woes.  In short, the mainstream media is going down as the big news giants begin to implode.

For quite some time now it has been widely known that NBC News and its sister networks MSNBC and CNBC are in dire financial straits.  That news was confirmed with the sale of the entity a few months ago.

Today, however, ABC News announced that it is cutting its news correspondent staff by half and that it will close all of its ‘brick and mortar’ news bureaus, except for its Washington hub.

In addition, CBS News is reportedly talking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper concerning an anchor position with the network. CBS has already been forced to cut Katie Couric’s salary, and Couric’s contract is set to expire in a little over a year.

The crash of big mainstream media is not confined to television, however.  Liberal, mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times, continue to operate under heavy financial pressure as subscriptions tank and advertising revenues fall to historic lows.

Meanwhile Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh are thriving.  After a year of unrelenting Obama demagoguing, Fox News is now THE most trusted name in news.

Shockingly (and I actually say that without irony), Americans still don’t want to be indoctrinated when they have a choice.

Obama has gone way, WAAAAYYYY downhill from the days when journalists and other passionate Obama supporters literally breathlessly compared him favorably to the divine Son of God.  I think of the Newsweek editor saying, “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”  I think of Chris Matthews saying he felt this thrill going up his leg as Obama spoke.  Here’s where “the One” stands after a year of gracing an undeserving wolrd with his exalted magnificence, according to Rasmussen:

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 22% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President.  Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19 (see trends). […]

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

And Democrats are swirling the drain for a massive defeat that might not only reach 1994-levels, but even make 1994 look like a good year for Democrats.  From Rasmussen:

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Republican candidates lead Democrats by seven points in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Voter support for GOP congressional candidates held steady from last week, while support for Democrats is up a point.

Voters not affiliated with either major party continue to favor the GOP by a 42% to 22% margin, showing little change for several months now. In February, the number of unaffiliated voters increased by half a percentage point as both Republicans and Democrats lost further ground.

Republicans started 2010 ahead by nine points — their largest lead in several years — while support for Democrats fell to its lowest level over the same period. Towards the end of 2009, GOP candidates enjoyed a more modest lead over Democrats, with the gap between the two down to four points in early December. Since the beginning of the year, however, the Republican lead hasn’t dipped below seven points.

The latest numbers continue to highlight a remarkable change in the political environment over the past year. This time last year, Democrats led Republicans 42% to 38%.

On January 18, 2009, Democrats led Republicans 42% to 35%.  How the tables have turned.  That’s a 14-point swing since Obama started ruining the country.  And the trend has been going steadily down-the-drain-ward for Democrats.

Even Democrat polling shows Democrats are in big, big trouble:

The national mood continues to sour, with the share who see the country headed in the wrong direction moving up 4 points since mid-January, up to 62 percent, the highest mark in a year

The also left-leaning Washington Post, reporting on the Democrat organization’s polling, wrote in an article entitled, “Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground,” that:

“The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin,” the pollsters said in their findings.

That’s really bad, considering that women have always been primary voters for Democrats, and it was independents’ votes that brought both Obama and Democrat over the top in 2008.

And what are Barry Hussein and Democrats going to do?  Prove every nasty thing that people now believe right.  Thus Democrats are pursuing a strategy that they themselves have said is immoral and unAmerican to pass a bill that Americans overwhelmingly do not want.

Why should Americans trust Democrats, given that they are now doing the very thing they themselves said was a terrible thing to do, and given all the Louisiana Purchases, all the Cornhusker Kickbacks, all the Gator-aids, and all the other illegitimate and even illegal acts of political sleazy backroom deals?

These same people promised us that unemployment would stay under 8% if we supported their now $862 billion stimulus.  And that was so false that only 6% of Americans believe it has created any jobs at all, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS.

Why should we want that kind of massively expensive failure with our health care system?

Look at the numbers demonstrating how Americans think about health care:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters say the health care reform plan now working its way through Congress will hurt the U.S. economy.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% think the plan will help the economy. But only seven percent (7%) say it will have no impact. Twelve percent (12%) aren’t sure.

Two-out-of-three voters (66%) also believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the federal deficit. That’s up six points from late November and comparable to findings just after the contentious August congressional recess. Ten percent (10%) say the plan is more likely to reduce the deficit and 14% say it will have no impact on the deficit.

Underlying this concern is a lack of trust in the government numbers. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates. That number includes 66% who say it is very likely that the official projections understate the true cost of the plan.

Just 10% have confidence in the official estimates and say the actual costs are unlikely to be higher.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) also believe it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform. This includes 65% who say middle-class tax hikes are very likely, a six-point increase from late November.

Do you really believe that the government will reduce the cost of anything?  This is something that can very quickly begin to explode out of control.  And by the time it does, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Obama keeps assuring us that his plan will lower the deficit, but we can’t even trust him on his own budget figures: the CBO recently reported that the Obama budget deficit will be a massive $1.2 trillion more than Obama said it would.

You can’t trust Obama on keeping his promises, and you certainly can’t trust him on bringing down costs.  On energy prices, Obama said the following:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

He doesn’t care about keeping his word, and he certainly doesn’t care about making vital services cost less.  The man is an ideologue – and he only cares about imposing his statist ideology.

The American people, including independents, don’t want statism, but they know they’ve got exactly that in Barack Obama.  They clearly don’t want a big government takeover of their health care, but the Democrats are apparently determined to impose it anyway.

China has had enough of the Democrats and their reckless spending: they are now preparing to sever the historic tie between their currency and that of the U.S. dollar.

Democrats are counting on the fact that the American people are simply too stupid to remember what Democrats did eight months before the election.  The question is, is that true?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thinks the American people are dumb enough to buy anything, saying:

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Let’s make a deal: give me trillions of dollars, and I’ll show you what’s in the bag I’m holding.

And pretty soon America is going to open their door in surprise to see a flaming bag filled with dog crap.  Try to stomp out the flames at your peril.

The United States of America is more vulnerable than it has ever been, due to deficits and spending that are simply out of control.

You independents – who are now beginning to at least understand the risk the president and party you voted for in 2008 presents to this country – had now better get off your butts and join Republicans in screaming this ObamaCare boondoggle down.  Because this incredibly partisan health care bill will very likely be the anvil that breaks this nation’s back if it is passed.

Supreme Court Justice Mouths ‘That’s Not True’ To Lying Obama Speech

Remember Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You LIE!” retort during Obama’s last speech in the Capitol Building?  Wilson’s statement was about the only honest thing said throughout the speech.  And Joe Wilson’s honest rebuke of Obama’s lies netted him at least $2.7 million in contributions.

Well, now we have our new “Joe Wilson” – coming straight from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Watch Justice Samuel Alito’s mouthed response of “That’s not true” to Obama’s demagoguery:

Politico sets up the moment:

POLITICO’s Kasie Hunt, who’s in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words “not true” when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.

Basically, if the Supreme Court says it’s legal to murder 50 million babies, the Democrats claim that the voice of God has spoken – and that ruling cannot be questioned.  But if that very same court says that corporations have a right to exercise free speech, then THAT’S an abortion of justice.

Obama’s denunciation of the Supreme Court in a venue in which they could not defend themselves – and with a line that was intended to generate a Democrat standing ovation all around them – was a despicable disrespect of our separate branches of government as well as being rude.  The Justices showed up for Obama’s speech out of courtesy for the executive and legislative branches; they did not show up to be attacked.

Just as Joe Wilson was CORRECT in his contention that Barack Obama had lied, Justice Alito was correct in pointing out that Obama had not told the truth.  A central claim in Obama’s slanderous attack against the Supreme Court decision was that foreign corporations would be able to influence the political process.  But that isn’t true:

Another area of interest is the possible effect of this decision on foreign political spending in U.S. elections. It is important to note (as much public comment on this decision does not) that under current law, election spending by non-U.S. persons and entities is prohibited under section 441e of the statute, and that prohibition is unaffected by the ruling in Citizens United. Thus, the existing restriction on expenditures by foreign corporations remains in place not because they are corporations but because they are foreign. Further, the U.S. subsidiaries of international companies are already subject to FEC restrictions on spending non-U.S. funds in U.S. elections, or allowing foreign nationals a role in the decision-making process. 11 C.F.R. § 110.20.

An article in Big Journalism sets up the legitimate major issues (as opposed to Obama’s illegitimate demagoguery) surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling:

Lost in most of the coverage of the decision (and conveniently ignored by President Obama, former “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School), is that, as Justice Kennedy points out, the ban on electioneering speech never applied to one type of corporation. And what type of corporation would be exempt from laws and regulations that chill the speech of all its corporate brethren? Why, the media corporation, as Justice Kennedy points out on page 35 of the opinion:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of  the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech???  Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News?  And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections?  Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?

The author of the above article contends that big media will be hurt by this ruling, since presently they are the only corporations that get free speech, and therefore are the only corporations that get to speak for all the other corporations through the filter of their liberal biases.

It’s also more than a little hypocritical for Obama to wax so self-righteous now when he had so little problem accepting all kinds of campaign contributions that in all likelihood included foreign money without every bothering to check.

And, of course, the very big-media corporations who were alone allowed to exercise their free speech never bothered to look at the Obama foreign money issue.

You want to hear the REAL reason Obama is so angry at this decision?  Because he is finally bothered by the notion that one’s chickens can come “home to roost.”

From the New York Times:

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

Obama has repeatedly demonized entire industries (banks, auto manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, etc.).  And now a whopping 77% of investors believe that Obama is anti-business.

So it will be something of a textbook case of poetic justice that the businesses that Obama viciously attacked finally get their own shot at being able to attack him for a change.

Bush Katrina Economy Obama Haiti Economy

Yesterday on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos substitute host Jake Tapper interviewed Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Bush could not have been more gracious in praising Obama’s relief efforts.

In other words, he didn’t try to do to Obama what Obama and the Democrats so viciously did to him.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: if Democrats believed their own crap about Bush and Katrina, why on earth would they be asking George Bush to lead an effort for Haitian relief now?

It has now been six days since the earthquake that destroyed Haiti.  Obama promised an unprecedented massive effort to provide emergency relief.

Has it been organized well?

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. relief effort after the Haiti earthquake started too slowly and cautiously, says a retired general who led the military relief effort on the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

“The next morning after the earthquake, as a military man of 37 years service, I assumed … there would be airplanes delivering aid, not troops, but aid,” said retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who coordinated military operations after disaster struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “What we saw instead was discussion about, ‘Well we’ve got to send an assessment team in to see what the needs are.’ And anytime I hear that, my head turns red.”

The problem, Honore told USA TODAY, is that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, instead of the military, take the lead in international disaster response.

“I was a little frustrated to hear that USAID was the lead agency,” he said. “I respect them, but they’re not a rapid deployment unit.”

USAID immediately dispatched an assessment team and search-and-rescue teams, but there has still not been widespread distribution of food or water, three days after the Haiti earthquake.

Let’s file that as a ‘no’.

Very little in the way of actual lifesaving supplies had gone out as of the time of that article.  Has that situation improved?

Yesterday, ABC’s Tapper pointed out:

“But it’s five days later, and still a lot of the relief effort, a lot of the aid has not gotten to the people who need it most.”

An exchange between Tapper and Raddatz:

So how about it, Martha? Is the relief effort getting to those who need it most?

RADDATZ: Well, we actually went with a convoy, one truckload of supplies yesterday. We arrived really early in the morning, expecting to track this truck, come back, and go out with another truck. It took us five-and-a-half hours to get these supplies where they were needed.

General Keen, the military commander, said that 70,000 bottles of water and 130,000 food rations had been handed out Saturday – four days after the disaster!  70,000 bottles of water for 3.5 MILLION people in need.  They needed 10 million bottles of water a day.

Let’s file that as another big ‘no.’

How many days did Bush get before Democrats hatefully and viciously attacked him?

Well, are they at least providing security for the relief supplies yet to come?

Another exchange during the ABC program between Jake Tapper and Martha Raddatz:

TAPPER: Speaking of chaos, Martha, we keep hearing about reports of sporadic violence. Where is the U.S. military in all this? Are they making attempts to secure the island?

RADDATZ: Absolutely not, Jake. They really aren’t. I keep hearing these numbers. There are about 4,200 American military supporting this mission, but mostly they’re out on the ships. They’re on the cutters. You’ve got the 82nd Airborne, not all of the 82nd Airborne, a brigade, about 3,500 soldiers are here. They’re expected to be here sometime next week. The Marines are not yet here, 2,200 Marines.

Jake Tapper pointed out to the US military commander for the region, General Keen, that:

General Keen, I’d like to go to you first. Martha Raddatz just reported that U.S. troops are not out there securing Haiti, even though there are sporadic outbursts of violence, some of them horrific. We heard a report of — in Petionville, a suburb of Port- au-Prince, a policeman handed over a suspected looter to an angry crowd. They stripped him, beat him, and set him on fire. We’ve also heard that some medical personnel are clearing the area because they don’t feel secure.

Sounds like another rather big ‘no’ vote.

I think I’ve amply proven the case that a week after the Haiti disaster a great deal separates what has been done from what could have been done.  I can’t help but remember how bitterly the left attacked Bush for the same failures following an unprecedented natural disaster.

This is what liberals would be saying about Barack Obama if they weren’t hypocrites: Barack Obama hates black people!!!  Barack Obama is creating a genocide of black people!!!

And Republican elected officials, if they were like Democrats, would be claiming accusing the Obama administration of “ethnic cleansing” in Haiti.

Because that’s how loathsome Democrats rolled just a few years back.  And yes, that’s right: the same Democrats who regard any criticism of Barack Obama as a form of blasphemy.

I was pointing that out last year during the Democrat National Convention when Democrats were STILL demonizing and demagoguing Bush for Hurricane Katrina.

The left ignored the fact that Hurricane Katrina was a supermassive disaster that simply overwhelmed the resources of the federal government regardless of who was in charge of it.  They ignored the fact that Bill Clinton hadn’t prepared New Orleans for such a disaster any better than George Bush did.  They ignored the fact that the heavily Democratic city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana had utterly failed to prepare, when such preparation should have been at the very core of their agenda.  They ignored details such as this:

The vultures of the venomous left are attacking on two fronts, first that the president didn’t do what the incompetent mayor of New Orleans and the pouty governor of Louisiana should have done, and didn’t, in the early hours after Katrina loosed the deluge on the city that care and good judgment forgot. Ray Nagin, the mayor, ordered a “mandatory” evacuation a day late, but kept the city’s 2,000 school buses parked and locked in neat rows when there was still time to take the refugees to higher ground. The bright-yellow buses sit ruined now in four feet of dirty water.

They ignored everything but their ideological agenda and the political axe-to-grind they had in their hands to swing at George Bush with.

And the propagandistic mainstream media helped them do it.

The same media that basically demanded that George Bush push a button and FIX New Orleans have gone out of their way to make excuses for the numerous failures in Haiti under Obama.

What is funny is that it was largely the attacks against Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina that led to the Democrat takeover of the House and the Senate in 2006.

Unemployment was 4.7% when the Democrats took over Congress.  It was 4.7% when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid assumed their respective majority leadership positions.  They have been in control of Congress ever since: and what is unemployment at now?

The Democrat Party/lamestream media narrative is that Bush was responsible for the economic meltdown because it happened during his watch.  There was never once a mention that it happened during Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s watch.  Because that particular narrative doesn’t fit their agenda.

George Bush called for reform of the housing finance market 17 times in 2008 alone — and Democrats ignored him.  They had been blocking his every effort to prevent disaster ever since Bush first tried to do so beginning in 2003.  At that time, Democrat Barney Frank led the effort to block reform, saying:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

George Bush and John McCain repeatedly warned that if we didn’t address the situation, we would suffer a financial collapse.

John McCain wrote an urgent letter in 2006 that read:

These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs—and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns.

In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

John McCain signed another letter that ended with these words:

With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

Substantial testimony calling for improved regulation of the GSEs has been provided to the Senate by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, HUD, GAO, CBO, and others. Congress has the opportunity to recommit itself to the housing mission of the GSEs while at the same time making sure the GSEs operate in a manner that does not expose our financial system, or taxpayers, to unnecessary risk. It is vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that these institutions benefit from strong and independent regulatory supervision, operate in a safe and sound manner, and are primarily focused on their statutory mission. More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event either GSE should fail. We strongly support an effort to schedule floor time this year to debate GSE regulatory reform.

And they DID fail.  They massively, massively failed.

Only about a month before the whole system crashed, Barney Frank went on the record and said this:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”

They sure were, you fat, miserable, loathsome, obscene, disgusting, slobbering, lying toad.

The top three headlines under the Google search “Fannie Mae collapse”:

Freddie, Fannie Scam Hidden in Broad Daylight

Financial Markets Reeling from Fannie & Freddie Collapse and Evitable Government Bailout

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Too big not to fail

But as our economy exploded along with the boondoggle housing finance market artificially sustained by Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats demagogued the Republicans.  And the lamestream media duly reported it as though it were all the liberal’s-god-socialist-big-government’s truth.

And thus you see how the liberal demagoguery surrounding Hurricane Katrina led to the liberal demagoguery surrounding the economic collapse.

And it just never stops.

The Obama White House has been rather shamelessly politicizing the Haitian earthquake disaster to bolster up its low support.

And even when Obama abandons Haiti to go to Massachusetts to prop up Democrat Martha Coakley’s failing candidacy, Democrats manage to demagogue over Haiti.

Bill Clinton, the Obama-appointed special envoy for Haiti, didn’t bother to go there, but focused on what was far more important: Martha Coakely’s election bid in Massachusetts.

Someone asked Bill Clinton about that, and he said that relief for Haiti and the election of Martha Coalkey in Massachusetts were “just two sides of the same coin.” The blatant and breathtaking politicization is mindboggling!!!

What would the mainstream media be saying about Republican George Bush literally turning his back on a disaster to fly north to Massachusetts to campaign for a Republican – bringing us special envoy to Haiti to do so with him – rather than turn south to deal with the Haiti disaster?  What would these demagogues who deceitfully call themselves “journalists” have said?

Even if you’re a liberal, you’re not stupid enough to realize that the media would have unleashed hell on earth to attack George Bush for such a partisan political act of abandonment.

And that’s what I’m really getting at.  The double standard between treatment of Democrats and Republicans is so massive it is positively unreal.  Obama can screw up every which way and the media will let it pass; Bush could hit a homerun and the media would declare it a foul ball and then attack him for his incredibly poor swing.

Meanwhile, of course, millions of Haitians are suffering, and not getting helped.

Just as millions of Americans are suffering, and not getting helped.

Meanwhile, the news media largely continues to spin the economy positively, even as more jobs were lost under Obama in 2009 than for any president in any year since 194o.

Update January 29:

HUMAN TRAFFICKING, FOOD RIOTS AND LACK OF MEDICINE PLAGUE HAITI
John G. Winder , The Cypress Times
Published 01/29/2010 – 10:28 a.m. CST

Mass graves. Tent cities.More than 90% of the nation’s structures damaged or destroyed. No food.Amputees and orphans left to fend for themselves.  Nearly all of the businesses gone.  No employment.  Yet it still gets worse for the people of Haiti.

Haiti’s Prime Ministery, Jean-Max Bellerive told CNN that he is receiving reports of children being stolen and trafficked as slaves, sex slaves and for the purpose of having their organs harvested to be sold.

“There is organ trafficking for children and other persons also, because they need all types of organs,” Bellerive said.

UNICEF is also reporting that children are being taken from hospitals by traffickers.

Had this happened under George Bush, with these results, the lamestream media would be attacking Bush as the most evil man since Hitler and the most incompetent buffoon since God created incompetent buffoons.

Just pointing out the obvious truth.

Lying, Demagogic White House Finally Gets Its Media Smackdown

I like the title from Moe Lane best: “White House tries to muzzle media; draws back a bloody stump.”

But Allahpundit exposes the true deceit and hypocrisy of the White House that led to its bloody stump:

Decide for yourself what the most disgraceful aspect of this is. Was it the fact that Gibbs told Jake Tapper explicitly on Monday that the White House wouldn’t try to dictate to the press pool who should and shouldn’t be included — before doing precisely that? Was it Anita Dunn going out of her way to say she respects Major Garrett as a fair reporter — before the administration decided he didn’t deserve a crack here at Feinberg? Or was it the repeated insistence by Dunn and Axelrod that of course the administration will make its officials available to Fox — before pulling the plug today?

The other networks deserve the praise they’re getting for standing up to the Baby-in-Chief, but if they had acquiesced in this freezeout, a precedent would have been set that would have been eagerly used by future Republican presidents to close them off too.  And don’t think they weren’t all keenly aware of it.

Hot Air does a very good job of showing what Obama and his cockroaches are full of.

The video is a great watch for anyone who likes to see the good guys win and the bad guys lose:

[Youtube link]

The Hot Air piece exposes the pattern of constant lies coming out of this White House.  They are as dishonest as the sun is hot.

The White House’s petulant demagoguery of Fox News has been utterly great for Fox News as their ratings have gone through the roof.  They nearly outstrip all of their competitors combined.  Even liberals are acknowledging that Fox News has been “undamaged” by the demagogic White House campaign against them.

Meanwhile, only 43% of voters would be willing to re-elect this whiner-in-chief.  And he’s seen the fastest drop in the polls of any president in 50 years.

So you just keep demonizing Fox News, you demon.  I think it’s workin’ just great for ya.