Newt Nails It: Media ‘Would Rather Worry About Rumors About Conservatives Than Facts About The President’

The mainstream media is pure leftist propaganda. Nothing more. They are dishonest and disingenuous. Everything they cover (and won’t cover) is distorted by their unrelentingly un-American leftist worldview.

Let’s take the latest serial accuser of Herman Cain.  Consider the credibility of Ginger White:

Ms. White is an unemployed single mother. Before the interview, Fox learned that she had filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001. That case was settled. The station also found a bankruptcy filing nearly 23 years ago in Kentucky, and several eviction notices in the Atlanta area over the past six years.

The station also reported that Ms. White had a former business partner who once sought a “stalking temporary protective order” against her for “repeated e-mails/texts threatening lawsuit and defamation of character.” The case was dismissed, but it was followed by a libel lawsuit against Ms. White. A judge entered an order against Ms. White because she failed to respond to the lawsuit, Fox reported.

And if that’s not enough there’s more (from ABC News):

Ginger White . . . has liens and civil judgments in Kentucky and Georgia dating back to 1994.

Eleven of those liens have been filed since 2009, with nine in 2011. The owners of her apartment complex in Dunwoody, Georgia have sued her for non-payment of rent nearly every month since the beginning of the year.

White, a 46-year-old unemployed single mother who is at least twice divorced, was described by WAGA as an Atlanta-area businesswoman. . . . According to WAGA, she filed a sex harassment claim against an employer ten years ago, and the case was settled. . . .

In January, there is a scheduled court date in an unrelated civil suit filed against her by a former business partner, Kimberly Vay, who alleges that White stalked and harassed her and had sought a protective order. A judge has entered a default judgment in Vay’s favor.

But hey, it helps the Democrat establishment depict Herman Cain as (and I quote a leftwing blogger here) a

 “jungle boogie black stud” who has “Sexed Up Every Woman In America Including Your Mom.”

Now, that is quintessentially racist in the real world.  But liberals have absolved themselves of racism due to the fact that it is by (their own) definition impossible for a liberal to be “racist.”  No matter how viscerally racist they actually are.

It doesn’t matter if these women accusing Cain are all complete train wrecks.  Every allegation must be thoroughly described ad nauseam until Herman Cain finally learns that uppity black men need to get in their place on the liberal plantation.  Because the Fugitive Slave Act remains alive and well within the Democrat Party when conservative blacks are at issue.

To say that the media covered the Herman Cain accusations like piranhas and jackals is frankly an insult to piranhas and jackals.

Now, did the media cover the numerous – and FAR more credible – accusations against Bill Clinton the same way they’ve covered Herman Cain?  Not in this universe:

The Clinton Treatment: How The Media Protected Bill But Pounce on Cain
November 01, 2011 14:40 ET

Alexandria, VA – In direct contrast to how ABC, CBS and NBC newsrooms all but ignored the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton from multiple women including Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, the same networks are now salivating over an alleged act of harassment by Herman Cain from anonymous sources, a new MRC report finds.

A look back at the Clinton scandals:

Paula Jones – February, 1994 – Accused Bill Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. CBS and NBC ignored her press conference. ABC gave it 16 seconds of coverage.

Kathleen Willey – July, 1997 – Accused Bill Clinton of groping her in the Oval Office while President. CBS gave it one minute on July 30 while NBC gave it a mention and ABC gave it no immediate coverage.

Juanita Broaddrick – March, 1998 – Accused Bill Clinton of raping her while he was the Arkansas Attorney General and a candidate for Governor. ABC, CBS, NBC offered weekend coverage but then dropped the story. NBC’s Dateline finally aired an interview with Broaddrick in February of 1999.

Brent Bozell responds:

“ABC, CBS and NBC pounced on the opportunity to slam GOP hopeful Herman Cain – even with unnamed accusers and sources. It is indefensible how the networks were quick to defend Bill Clinton by not reporting public accusations of rape, inappropriate physical contact, and explicit behavior – and are quick to attack Herman Cain on the basis of weak allegations by anonymous sources.

“While these women received a different kind of ‘Clinton Treatment,’ the media have their own version, and are quick to put it aside when it comes to Herman Cain. They want to see this smart, successful, black man come to ruin – all because he is a conservative. A disgraceful President who faced public accusers and an impeachment trial received better treatment in the so-called ‘news’ than a candidate whose accusers remain unnamed.”

Politico alone had run 90 stories on Herman Cain as a sexual harasser by November 4th.

Then there was John Edwards, who – unlike Herman Cain – actually fathered a CHILD in the course of his adultery.  The mainstream media REFUSED to cover the story even though they KNEW about it.  As I documented at the time here and here.  The same media that is going after Herman Cain like pitbulls going after a piece of bloody meat refused to go after John Edwards until AFTER the Democrat Primary.

With that as a backdrop of rampant, raging mainstream media bias and outright hatred for conservatives (and particularly black conservatives), let’s see what Newt Gingrich had to say when he found out that the Washington Post had their heads in his garbage cans:

Gingrich Rips WaPo: Media ‘Would Rather Worry About Rumors About Conservatives Than Facts About President’
By Noel Sheppard | November 30, 2011 | 09:34

On Monday, NewsBusters broke a story about Washington Post blogger Aaron Blake using Twitter to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

On Tuesday, the former House Speaker spoke to St. Louis radio host and Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch about this saying, “It’s a little sad to see a paper the quality of the Washington Post stoop to…the National Enquirer approach to life” adding they “would rather worry about rumors about conservatives than facts about the President” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

[See video at Newsbusters]

DANA LOESCH: I’ve noticed that Aaron Blake who writes for the Washington Post’s The Fix, it’s a political blog, has reached out to readers asking them to crowd-source your past to see if they can get some skeletons in your closet. Have you heard of this?

NEWT GINGRICH: I haven’t heard of it. I’m not at all surprised. I think that you have to expect that kind of trash. I’ve been honest about the fact that there are things I did in my past that I’ve had to go to G-d and seek forgiveness for and seek reconciliation. And if this guy manages to find some magic example, I will stipulate it. I have a very good marriage with Callista. We have, we’re very, very close and have been now for well over a decade. I’m very close to my two daughters and my son-in-laws, and I’m very close to my grandchildren. And I’ll let people look at who I am and how I live today and decide whether or not I’m the person they want to have as president.

It’s a little sad to see a paper the quality of the Washington Post stoop to that, which used to be the National Enquirer approach to life. But that’s just the nature of where we are today.

LOESCH: And I wish that they would crowd-source the White House visitor logs the way that they’re going after individuals like you or Sarah Palin.

GINGRICH: I wish they would crowd-source to discover what he did at Columbia University, and I wish they would crowd-source to figure out what he did with Saul Alinsky’s ideas on the South Side of Chicago.

LOESCH: Exactly.

GINGRICH: Nobody’s ever explored exactly, the community organizer did not mean boys and girls clubs. It meant Saul Alinsky radicalism.

LOESCH: Yeah, it absolutely did.

GINGRICH: But the news media’s never quite found itself as excited about the facts about Barack Obama. Would rather worry about rumors about conservatives than facts about the President.

It really is absurd how little Americans know about our President’s life after he left Hawaii, in particular what he did in Chicago before running for the highest office in the land.

Instead of doing any such investigative journalism, our so-called press digs into every rumor and unsubstantiated allegation against his political rivals.

Will they only be interested in the truth once Obama leaves office, or will his past continue to be verboten as they try to build up his legacy much as they are currently doing with former President Jimmy Carter?

Loesch’s entire interview with the former Speaker is available at Big Journalism.

Mind you, that omits Barack Obama’s racist, anti-American, Marxist “reverend” for twenty years.  And it omits the terrorist bomber pal who gave Obama his start in politics.  Because yes, lying liberal media, Obama DID get his political start in Bill Ayers’ living room.

If you get your news from the mainstream media, from the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or New York Times, from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. etc., you are a dishonest person.  Because you prefer lies.  Your soul swims in lies.  And you gravitate toward dishonest “news” sources that will feed your addiction to lies.

If the media had gone after Bill Clinton the way it’s gone after Herman Cain, Bill Clinton never would have been president.

If the media had gone after Barack Obama the way it’s gone after Herman Cain or Sarah Palin, Barack Obama never would have even come close to winning the Democrat primary, let alone been president.

Journalists are the most dishonest vermin in the world:

“journalists are ranked as the least trustworthy with just 19 per cent believing they tell the truth.”

And one day they will burn in the hottest level of hell.

Not that that will help Herman Cain.  Or Newt Gingrich, when these lying cockroaches get to work on him, for that matter.

Newt does the National Enquirer a disservice in comparing them to the mainstream media; because the National Enquirer is vastly more credible than the mainstream media – even when they are talking about the latest Elvis or Bigfoot sighting.

Um, For The Actual Record, Herman Cain’s Account Is Pretty Much Confirmed

The media has demonically attacked Herman Cain with every charge imaginable.  And it turns out that his account holds up to even their microscopic rectal scrutiny.

 Cain did not sign settlement, accuser’s lawyer says
By Jan Crawford     November 4, 2011 10:39 AM

The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999–and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.

Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.

That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it’s conceivable that Cain didn’t even know about it.

Bennett also told CBS News Friday morning he is hoping to issue a public statement reaffirming the accuser’s claim within hours, if the restaurant group agrees to ease the confidentiality agreement that was part of the deal.

Bennett plans to issue the statement in his name, not in his client’s name. It will not identify her, nor will it detail specific events of sexual harassment or the amount of settlement.

“It will insist the complaints were in good faith, and she’s going to stand by her complaints,” Bennett told CBS News. “It’s her response to Herman Cain’s statements that the complaints are baseless.”

Cain left the association June 30, 1999, according to the NRA. Under that timeline, Cain would have been gone when the settlement was reached–and may well have been gone when she filed the complaint.

Cain has insisted he only knew of one complaint, and says he knew of no legal settlements–only what he calls a severance agreement with one woman. This timeline could well bolster his claims.

When Cain ran to represent Georgia in the Senate four years later, he told his advisers there was one complaint against him at the Restaurant Association, and that it was “baseless.” One former staffer on the Senate campaign told CBS News that he and other advisers in the campaign knew about that complaint and believed it was meritless, but thought it could crop up in possible opposition research.

As yet, there has not been so much as ONE publicly identified woman or ONE specific allegation of sexual harassment revealed.

Versus repeated instances from FOUR woman of gross sexual misconduct committed by Bill Clinton – including the charge of RAPE.

Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and that he lied about it.  Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Did I say four women?  Sorry, there were FIVE.  And one of them had his semen to PROVE the disgusting harassment beyond the scintilla of a doubt against a president who claimed “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” after his handlers mocked Paula Jones’ “big hair” and ridiculed her over “dragging a dollar bill through a trailer park.”

Show me Herman Cain’s sperm and if I act like a Democrat hypocrite I STILL won’t acknowledge that Cain did a damn thing wrong.

And yet here’s how the media handled Clinton versus how they are handling Cain:

The Clinton Treatment: How The Media Protected Bill But Pounce on Cain
November 01, 2011 14:40 ET

Alexandria, VA – In direct contrast to how ABC, CBS and NBC newsrooms all but ignored the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton from multiple women including Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, the same networks are now salivating over an alleged act of harassment by Herman Cain from anonymous sources, a new MRC report finds.

A look back at the Clinton scandals:

Paula Jones – February, 1994 – Accused Bill Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. CBS and NBC ignored her press conference. ABC gave it 16 seconds of coverage.

Kathleen Willey – July, 1997 – Accused Bill Clinton of groping her in the Oval Office while President. CBS gave it one minute on July 30 while NBC gave it a mention and ABC gave it no immediate coverage.

Juanita Broaddrick – March, 1998 – Accused Bill Clinton of raping her while he was the Arkansas Attorney General and a candidate for Governor. ABC, CBS, NBC offered weekend coverage but then dropped the story. NBC’s Dateline finally aired an interview with Broaddrick in February of 1999.

Brent Bozell responds:

“ABC, CBS and NBC pounced on the opportunity to slam GOP hopeful Herman Cain – even with unnamed accusers and sources. It is indefensible how the networks were quick to defend Bill Clinton by not reporting public accusations of rape, inappropriate physical contact, and explicit behavior – and are quick to attack Herman Cain on the basis of weak allegations by anonymous sources.

“While these women received a different kind of ‘Clinton Treatment,’ the media have their own version, and are quick to put it aside when it comes to Herman Cain. They want to see this smart, successful, black man come to ruin – all because he is a conservative. A disgraceful President who faced public accusers and an impeachment trial received better treatment in the so-called ‘news’ than a candidate whose accusers remain unnamed.”

Politico alone has run more than NINETY stories on Herman Cain and sexual harassment.  Even though there IS no story.

Democrats are despicable, vile people.  And they are despicable, vile people according to their own constantly evolving double-standards.

Profile Of A Herman Cain Accuser

Let’s take a little look-see at the women who are accusing Herman Cain.

The truly amazing thing about this woman is that she is actually the most credible accuser with the most credible allegation against Herman Cain to date.  Because this is the ONLY woman who has publicly come forward against Herman Cain.  Everyone else is anonymous, with no details available.

Let’s look at this most credible accuser to surface:

From ABC:

Who is Cain accuser Sharon Bialek?
Chuck Goudie
 
November 7, 2011 (MUNDELEIN, Ill.) (WLS) — Sharon Bialek, who lives in suburban Mundelein, said Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain reached under her skirt 14 years ago when she was asked him about a job.

In this Intelligence Report: Who is Sharon Bialek? The Chicago-area woman has an extensive corporate and personal history in the area going back to the early 1990s.

It was her hope for a new job that Bialek says brought her to Herman Cain that day in 1997. Bialek’s resume and a trail of public records indicates that changing jobs has been a regular occurrence for the Chicagoan. She has worked for at least nine different employers over the past 17 years and appears to have struggled financially.

The public record on Bialek begins in 1991 when she filed personal bankruptcy for the first time while living in Des Plaines.

Between 1993 and 1996 Bialek worked for four different companies in promotion and marketing positions.

In 1996, and part of 1997, Bialek was at the National Restaurant Association. After being let go from that job in mid-1997, she says that she went to Washington, D.C., to meet with Cain, president of the association, because she needed a job.

In 1999, Bialek’s son Nicholas was born and a paternity lawsuit was filed by the father, a media executive.

In 2001 came Bialek’s second personal bankruptcy, filed after sizable legal bills. That year she was hired by WGN radio where she worked until 2004 when she took a marketing job and then a job at WCKG radio.

Along the way, according to her attorney, Bialek also held positions with Revlon and Easter Seals.

Bialek currently lives in Mundelein with fiance Mark Harwood.

“She’s of the same political persuasion as Herman Cain,” Harwood said. “There was no money on the table to go and have an interview. This is truly about an American girl who’s got a big heart and wants to do the right thing.”

Yeah, right.  And I’m of the same political persuasion as Barack Obama.  And I’ve got a big heart and want to do the liberal thing.  So please give me money and a bunch of attention.

According to public records, Bialek has NEVER donated to a SINGLE Republican candidate or organization.  Unlike Herman Cain, for what facts are worth.  Furthermore, her claim of having been to Tea Party events is simply a lie.

The AP pointed out that:

“Court records indicate Bialek had financial difficulties a decade ago when she filed for bankruptcy protection and reported $4,500 in unpaid rent and $13,000 in outstanding credit card bills.”

Oh, and for the official record, ABC left out the fact that  Sharon Bialek had a summary judgment issued against her with a court order to seize her assets for debts she never bothered to pay for just a couple of months ago.

But what the hell, she’s attacking a black conservative man, so let’s just believe her, anyway.

Note that her attorney is Gloria Alred, lifelong despiser of conservatives and Republicans (the last time she crawled out of her cockroach den she helped secure the election of Democrat Jerry Brown with a similar hatchet job of Republican candidate Meg Whitman):

Clarence Thomas – the LAST conservative black man to be viciously attacked by liberals – said this:

“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

Yep.  It will sure happen to you if you have the courage to be a conservative black man and try to escape the white liberal plantation and try to gain any kind of power or influence.  You become a threat to the plantation, and the plantation will come after you with the nastiest tactics they can muster.

Washington Post VP Says Herman Cain Has Sexual Harrassment Charges ‘Coming To Him’ – While Repeatedly Pawing Attractive Female Reporter

Understand something: if a woman decides that she was sexually harrased, then she was sexually harrassed.  And one of the ingredients of sexual harrassment is “unwanted touching.”

Here’s a working woman just trying to do her job.  And part of her “job” is getting pawed by drunk old lecherous liberal rat bastards – in the minds of said drunk lecherous liberal rat bastards.  But I guess the smiling bitch had it coming, or some other excuse.

It’s too bad this reporter doesn’t file charges against this vile old liberal hypocrite (beginning one minute into video):

Former Washington Post editor discusses Cain sexual harassment story while pawing Daily Caller reporter
Published: 11:26 PM 11/03/2011 | Updated: 4:43 PM 11/04/2011

On Wednesday evening The Daily Caller spoke to Washington Post Executive Editor Bob Woodward, and Washington Post vice president and former executive editor Ben Bradlee, about Chris Matthews’ new book “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero” — and about the sexual harassment allegations facing GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.

[video of interview available at Daily Caller]

Let’s imagine the reporter talking to her lawyer later: “I didn’t invite him to touch me, but he just grabbed me.  I felt very uncomfortable and threatened.  I was just trying to do my job.  And then he pawed me again!”

Ben Bradlee needs to “get what’s coming to him” too.

When asked if he had any advice for Cain, Bradlee said, “Run for the roundhouse,” which is an obvious allusion to the John Brown plot to free the slaves at Harpers’ Ferry. Slaves were told to go to the round house for protection and refuge.

Wonder if Bradlee gave the same advice to Democrats John Kennedy, who bedded at least two dozen women in the White House, and to Bill Clinton – who repeatedly had publicly identified women make specific and detailed charges of not only the most disgusting forms of sexual harrassment but actual RAPE – leveled against him.

Let’s just call this what it is: another “high tech lynching” by a racist liberal establishment against a black conservative man whose primary “crime” is the “thoughtcrime” of trying to wander off the liberal plantation.

As for the guffaws over allegations ‘racism’ by Cain (you know, over that strange coincidence that every single time a black male conservative is on the verge of attaining real power, liberals point out that black men are basically animals who can’t control their lusts), someone at the party should have been wearing this T-shirt:

Read “The Racist History of the Democrat Party” for more.

Herman Cain Surges To Lead In The STILL-Early GOP Primary Race

The news is interesting – and not unwelcome:

IBOPE Zogby Poll: Perry Trails Cain in GOP Race
Monday, 26 Sep 2011 05:15 PM

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has tumbled among GOP primary voters and now trails business executive Herman Cain in the race for the nomination, according to the latest IBOPE Zogby Poll.

Cain’s campaign appears to have picked up steam after a win in Florida’s Straw Poll this weekend, while Perry continues to suffer from lackluster performances in GOP debates, the most recent held last Thursday in Orlando.

Perry, at 18 percent, has tumbled by more than 20 percentage points over the past month, according to IBOPE Zogby numbers and is now second to Herman Cain, who leads the field with 28 percent.

Mitt Romney trails the others at number three, with 17 percent of the vote.

The poll, conducted Sept. 23-26 was done after Perry’s performance last Thursday in the most recent debate, but was still in the field as Cain took the Straw Poll win in Florida. Cain was the choice of only 8 percent of the GOP voters a month ago.

The worst news came for Michele Bachmann, who took just 4 percent of the votes — down from 34 percent on June 30.

I took an early stand supporting Rick Perry.  And I STILL support Rick Perry.  But I’ve always liked Herman Cain, too.  My biggest reason for not supporting him was that he hadn’t demonstrated the ability to get a substantial following and WIN.

Perry has been abysmal in the three debates thus far.  He just aint cutting the mustard.  That isn’t fatal – if he can get his ‘A’ game working.  But at this point his poor performances lead to the question: Does the guy even HAVE an ‘A game’?

On Perry’s side, my understanding is that the man had major back surgery, and that the tendency is that he starts out well in debates, and then fades as the pain from standing takes over.  Pain has a way of being very distracting and interfering with the ability to focus and concentrate, and in my own experience when you’ve got a bad back or bad knees, standing is actually far worse than walking.  On the other hand, it doesn’t matter; somehow the man simply has to come through in a major debate or he is going to (deservedly) fade away.

Cain has done well in the debates; personally, I believe either he or Newt Gingrich have won all three (with two out of three going to Gingrich).  And while “debate skills” certainly don’t determine my choice of a candidate, that has got to be a factor.

Why has Bachmann tanked so?  I believe she’s tanked for the exact same reason that Tim Pawlenty tanked.  When Pawlenty tore into Bachmann, it really annoyed me and I lost a lot of respect for Pawlenty.  And now here Bachmann is PERSONALLY attacking Rick Perry, and it really annoys me and I’ve lost a lot of respect for Michelle Bachmann.

Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann have chosen to blast away at Rick Perry – who had the lion’s share of the “conservative” vote.  But if you like a candidate (the way I like Rick Perry), do you really think you can tear that candidate to pieces and then I’ll like the person who tore my candidate to pieces?  And it’s not just that; it’s that Mitt Romney – the establishment “moderate” candidate – is laughing all the way to the nomination.  If you want a conservative to win, the worst thing that can happen is that Bachmann, Santorum and Perry cancel each other out.

So with all that going on, it really doesn’t bother me that Herman Cain might be surging.  At least none of the other candidates have placed him in a suicidal death grip – at least yet.

Ultimately, what I most want is for the GOP to take the White House away from the worst president in American history.  Which means I’ll be a loyal soldier to whichever candidate emerges to take on our Marxist-in-Chief.

Turning The Tables On Vicious Rolling Stone Leftist Attack Piece On Michelle Palin (Among Other Things, They Plagiarized).

There was a particularly vicious leftwing assault by leftwing rag The Rolling Stone. The only time I ever hear anything about Rolling Stone Magazine is when they do something particularly vile, because on their best day they are still vile and so why read them?  Their last infamous hit piece (on General Stanley McChrystal) was also filled with fraud.  But what can you say?  Liberals are people who swim in an ocean of lies; and why should they be troubled when the people they trust to lie to them turn out to be dishonest???

There are such lines in the Rolling Stone piece as “Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.” I don’t need to read further than that. It was a toxic, rabid hit piece by toxic, rabid secular humanist liberals.

But let us consider the “standards” of journalism that these people follow. Let us consider who the REAL religious zealots whose brains are raging electrical storms of demonic visions and paranoid delusions are. Let us consider who should have the last laugh, and who should be fired as disgraces:

Rolling Stone caught in potential plagiarism flap over Michele Bachmann profile
By Joe Pompeo & Dylan Stableford
June 24, 2011

It’s been a few months since we’ve had ourselves a good-old plagiarism incident to get riled up about. But thanks to Rolling Stone, our sleepy summer Friday just got a bit more scandalous!

The magazine is taking some heat today for lifting quotes in Matt Taibbi’s hit piece on Minnesota’s 2012 Tea Party hopeful Michele Bachmann.

In the story, posted online Wednesday, Taibbi borrows heavily from a 2006 profile of Bachmann by G.R. Anderson, a former Minneapolis City Pages reporter who now teaches journalism at the University of Minnesota. The thin sourcing, as Abe Sauer argues over at The Awl, is part of a “parade of uncredited use of material” from local blogs and reporters who “have dogged Bachmann for years now.”

But the larger issue for journalism’s ethical watchdogs concerns the several unattributed quotes Sauer spotted in Taibbi’s piece, which Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates explained away by saying he’d cut out the attributions due to “space concerns” and that he would “get some links included in the story online.”

At least one plagiarism “expert” doesn’t buy Bates’ logic.

“Attribution is the last thing an editor should cut!!!!” Jack Shafer, who is known to grill copy-stealers in his media column for Slate (and who used to edit two alt-weeklies similar to City Pages), told The Cutline via email. “How big was the art hole on that piece? Huge, I’ll bet.”

Shafer added: “If an editor deletes attribution, can the writer be called a plagiarist? I don’t think so. Is that what happened? If Taibbi approved the deletions, it’s another question.”

We emailed Taibbi, who is no stranger to press controversies, with a request for comment and will update this if we hear back.

UPDATE 4 p.m. “I did in fact refer to the City Pages piece in the draft I submitted,” Taibbi told The Cutline. “I did not see that those attributions had been removed. I grew up in alternative newspapers and have been in the position the City Pages reporter is in, so I’m sympathetic. They did good work in that piece and deserve to be credited. But you should know also that this isn’t plagiarism–it’s not even an allegation of plagiarism. It’s an attribution issue.”

In the meantime, Anderson is giving Rolling Stone the benefit of the doubt, although he didn’t let them off the hook entirely.

“I would not consider what the Rolling Stone [piece] contained in it to be plagiarism,” Anderson told City Pages. “What I will say, as a graduate of the Columbia J-School, and an adjunct at the University of Minnesota J-School, I do know that if a student handed in a story with that particular lack of sourcing, not only would I give it an ‘F,’ I would probably put that student on academic fraud.”

You can check out a side-by-side comparison of the two Bachmann profiles over at The Awl.

What is particularly ironic is the use of an image of Michelle Bachmann as holy warrior, gripping the Bible in one hand and a sword dripping in blood in the other as a bloody slaughter continues unabated in the background. It’s an image that is intended to summon the most grisly spectre of the Crusades, of course.

Accompanying the Rolling Stone article on Bachmann:

At the worst of the Crusades, the “Christian warriors” were given Absolution for their sins for taking part in the Holy War. You could literally get away with murder. And too many did just that (at least until they found out the hard way that the Pope’s absolution didn’t give them absolution from a just and holy God).

Now, let us consider the irony of the “Absolution” given by the left. Women are sacred cows (now watch me get attacked as calling women “cows”) in liberalism. You do not DARE attack women. Unless they are conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. And then liberals are given total Absolution to attack them as women, as wives, as mothers, as sexual beings, as anything that smears them and degrades them. And they have absolution to do it; no women’s group will come after them. Their sins are pardoned.

Call it a leftwing Crusade; better yet, call it a leftwing jihad.  “Kill thee all the enemies of liberalism.  Nullus Dues lo volt! [No God wills it!].  Thous hast absolution to murder thine opponents by any means necessary!”  And off these “journalists” (or JournoLists) go to do their demonic bidding.

A similar case of such liberal Absolution just occurred with Jon Stewart, who mocked black conservative Herman Cain in an obviously racial and racist manner using his Amos and Andy voice. It’s fine; a Jon Stewart liberal can openly racially mock a black man, provided that black man is a conservative. It’s no different than the most cynical criticism of Pope Pius in the Crusades, who said it was okay to murder as long as you were murdering a Muslim.

We see their “objective” work when they flood to Alaska to search through tens of thousands of Sarah Palin emails and even enlist their readers to help them dig for dirt.  They never would have DREAMED of subpeoning Barak Obama’s emails.  We see their “objective” work when they trip all over themselves to buy a story about a bogus lesbian Muslim heroine (i.e. more liberal fraud) just because she was lesbian and Muslim, and that’s exactly what they wanted to see.

I would love nothing more than to have all the Western “journalists” who have played these games grabbed up and taken to a country governed by Islam and watch the look on their formerly smug faces as they were tortured and killed one after another. Until that day, they will continue to serve as useful idiots for communism and terrorism and pretty much every other “ism” that is eroding Western Culture from within.

Add that abject hypocrisy of the left to the fact that for a writer anything resembling plagiarism is the greatest sin imaginable, and you get to see just how utterly vile these people are. They have no honor, no integrity, no decency. Period.

And then we compare the sheer number of plagiarism cases at leftwing papers such as the New York Times (I’ll just drop a couple of names like Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd and Zachery Kouwe) to conservative papers like the Wall Street Journal, and you see which side simply has no honor, integrity, or decency at all.  But what should we expect from such a rabid little bunch of Goebbels?  Honesty?

It is also interesting to add that the Crusaders were in fact responding to CENTURIES of Muslim aggression. While many of the monstrous acts that occurred on both sides could never be justified, “the Crusades” themselves were quite justifiable. I make mention of this because the left continues to do to the Crusades what they are doing even today; take the side of the aggressive vicious murderers against Western Culture. And when you look at a major rundown of major plagiarism cases in journalism, it’s the leftwing names like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe and ESPN rather than Fox News.

When America is sufficiently toxic and ripe for judgment, it listens to lies and the bad people who tell those lies and votes for Democrats.  That’s basically where we seem to be now.

Oh, by the way, Barack Obama is a documented plagiarist, too.  That’s part of the reason liberal journalists love him so much; he’s truly one of them.

Cokie Roberts Says We Hate Obama Because He’s Black (But Then Why Do We So Despise YOU, Cokie?)

File this one under the category “Stupid liberal tricks.”

It is pulled out all the time, because liberals are people who have no possibility of debating on the level of ideas, and can therefore only demonize and race-bait.

Last year, I responded to the same exact charge from Jimmy Carter the same exact way: “Question For Jimmy Carter: If We Despise Obama Because Of Racism, Why Is It That We Despise YOU?”

But here we go again, another liberal ideologue who assumes that just because she can’t get over her own personal issues of racism, neither can her opponents whom she projects upon:

Because They Can’t Say ‘I Don’t Like Him Cause He’s Black’
By Noel Sheppard | April 24, 2011 | 12:06

ABC devoted its entire “This Week” on Easter Sunday to “God and Government,” and not surprisingly the question of President Obama’s faith prominently entered the discussion.

When it did, Cokie Roberts said, “The bad part about this is that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim because the same people won’t say, ‘I don’t like him cause he’s black'” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

STEVE ROBERTS: The word Muslim is a code word, and it’s a metaphor. It’s a metaphor for racism. It’s a metaphor for he’s different from us, he’s not like us, he’s got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is – and he’s an alien on some level. But this goes back to our earlier discussion, that there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who’s different…

(CROSSTALK)

COKIE ROBERTS: But – but – but the bad part about this…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS, S.: But in the long run, the forces of…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS, C.: Right. But – but…

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Forty seven percent of white people voted for him.

Actually, it’s 43 percent, but still a spectacular point by Land that most on the panel missed and most in the country ignore. They also forget that shortly after his inauguration, Obama’s favorability rating was around 75 percent. That includes a lot of white people as well.

What the media just can’t get their hands around is that disapproval of Obama today isn’t because he’s black – it’s because of his policies. Or do the 70 percent of the country that now believe the nation is on the wrong track also feel this way because the President is black?

ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim…

EBOO PATEL, INTERFAITH YOUTH CORE: That’s right.

ROBERTS, C.: …because the same people won’t – won’t say, “I don’t like him cause he’s black.” So it’s – it’s – and – and the fact that it’s acceptable to dislike him because he’s a Muslim is the problem that you were talking about.

Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday.

I doubt I’m the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day.

So why is it that I think you’re a total disgrace, Cokie?  I mean, you’re white and everything.  Why is it, based on your racist theories, that I think that an obviously quite-caucasian-person like you is utterly morally depraved???

 I would rather appreciate it if liberals would search through my blog for liberals like Jimmy Carter, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or Harry Reid, or Alan Grayson.  And maybe you can do a pull-quote where I say, “I can’t agree with __________’s politics, but he/she happens to be white, so I like him/her.”

 

I could care less about Obama’s melatonin level.  It’s the color of his ideology I can’t stand.  Same as with you, Ms. Roberts.

 

Cokie Roberts and this Steve Roberts are racists.  They are racial demagogues.  They falsely use the issue of race to attack their opponents.  They are among the very worst human beings in America.  Because if you don’t agree with them in their politics, they will stoop to the lowest and most loathsome tactics to paint you in the most hateful way they know how.

 

I like Clarence Thomas, when I know you can’t stand him, Cokie.  Same goes for tremendous (and black) men like Herman Cain and Allen West.  You can’t stand these black men.  And they are actually considerably “blacker” than Barack Obama.  And going by your own “logic,” I can only conclude that it must be because you are a racist.

 

You are poisonous, vile people.  Frankly, it never would have even OCCURRED to me to think that disliking a politician from the “other party” was due to racism, but you racist bigoted people just keep forcing me to apply your own twisted and perverted standards back at you.

 

It is crap like this that explains why I don’t bother to watch ABC unless they have something like the NBA playoffs on (which somehow I love to watch even though there seem to be an awful lot of black people).  I mean, how much is it worth to hear Cokie Roberts look into my mind from the other side of the television camera and attempt to diagnose my mental states?  You know, when I know that a) she hates me; and b) that she is a fundamentally dishonest and venemous person???  You know, even in spite of the fact that she’s white and all.

 

I like black people just fine, Cokie.  It’s people who think and speak like you I can’t stand.  And I don’t care what color your skin happens to be.

 

For the record, I have never said Oama is a Muslim.  If anything, I think Barack Obama’s god is Barack Obama.

 

I DO know that he is most certainly no Christian:

 in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”

 

What does Jesus say?  Consider Matthew 16:24-25:

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.

 

Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:

 

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.

 

And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:

 

So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.

 

Or consider Galatians 2:20:

 

“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delibered Himself up for me (individual).”

 

And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:

 

“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If any one (individual)  hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”

 

Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross.  This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.

 

And if you need further confirmation that Obama’s “Christian faith” is nothing more than a leftwing political ideology masquerading as religion, consider the hateful racist preacher he chose to listen to on Easter Morning when the rest of us were celebrating Jesus’ Resurrection.

 

The “Muslim” thing is a red herring.  To the extent that some “conservative” is wrong to call Obama a “Muslim,” liberals are every bit as factually incorrect to call Obama a “Christian.”

 

Then there’s the fact that Obama has largely brought the “Muslim” label on himself:

 

OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come–

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: — my Christian faith.

 

You see, I’ve made a lot of gaffes in my day.  But I have never even once in my entire life inadvertainly called myself a Muslim.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a Muslim, but it definitely at least means that he doesn’t hold his “Christian faith” very firmly.

 

Just this past Sunday (which was Easter for you liberals who don’t give a damn about the day we celebrate the bodily Resurrection of Christ from the dead), Obama amazingly refused to give an Easter statement.  By contrast, Obama has released plenty of statements honoring Muslim holy days:

 

Barack Obama released statements for the Muslims holidays of Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, the Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha last year. Just last month he released a statement for the Persian Nowruz holiday

 

So it’s like when it comes to being accused of being a Muslim, Obama – at the very least – puts a great big giant “PLEASE KICK ME!” sign on his own pants, and then cries in outrage and shock every time somebody dares to kick him in the pants.  And then there’s all these mainstream media propagandists just following Obama around hoping that somebody kicks him in the pants so they can cry foul.

 

In the end, I never cease to be shocked at just how unrelentingly biased and hostile these “objective” journalists are to conservatives.  And frakly, if so-called “journalists” like Cokie Roberts simply had the integrity to come out and say, “I am a rabid leftwing ideologue, and I’d like to tell you what I think,” they would be far more interesting.

 

New York University Liberal Celebrates Gang-Raping Of “War Monger” CBS Journalist By Egyptians

Liberals are people who need to be exposed so that everyone can see how truly hypocritical and in fact truly evil they are.

Invariably, liberals end up disguising who they are; they will run as moderates, fool the foolish masses, and then the gloves come off and the fangs come out.  And then they are widely rejected by Americans who don’t want the vile garbage liberals euhamistically label “social justice,” and they go back to trying to deceive the masses until they can demagogue their way to their next opportunity to sink their fangs into Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty.

Take Barack Obama.  Here’s a guy who spent two full years governing as an off-the-wall over-the-top liberal.  What were the magazine covers?

And even better:

What does the story somehow morph into once the people rise up in rage and vote out all these liberal scum?

Now, some fool might argue that that’s just elite media liberals, and Obama doesn’t have any control over what other liberals put on their magazine covers.  But that isn’t true.  Obama started this whole “I’m just like Ronnie!” thing off by carrying a book about Reagan around.  And then a few of his advisers went around and made comparisons.  And that started an Obama-friendly blitzkrieg of comparisons of Obama to Reagan, and how Obama actually has all the greatest of Reagan’s qualities while harboring none of his nasty policies.  And then Obama appears with his outgoing press secretary Robert Gibbs and refers to himself as “the Gipper,” which was clearly Ronald Reagan’s most famous line as an actor and a line he repeated often as president.  These people are not stupid; it was all quite intentional. 

The American people did not like the liberal face that Obama showed them.  So Obama said, “Don’t look at my face with the fangs!  Look over here at my Reagan sock puppet!”

Let me just take a moment to assure you that Ronald Reagan never tried to deceive people into thinking he was really a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.

But rather than looking at the false face of liberalism that liberals want you to look at, the face they show you when they realize that the people have seen their ugly and hateful soul and rejected it, let’s look at the real face of liberalism.

Here’s the latest story exposing why you don’t want liberals in charge of anything but the insane asylum and convict inmate popuations:

This afternoon, atrocious news surfaced that CBS correspondent Lara Logan had been subjected to “brutal and sustained sexual assault” while covering the celebrations in Egypt.

According to a full statement released by CBS:

On Friday February 11, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS Correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a 60 MINUTES story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently in the hospital recovering.

There will be no further comment from CBS News and Correspondent Logan and her family respectfully request privacy at this time.

When the news initially broke, I was on Twitter as people began talking about it. Almost everyone was shocked, appalled, and deeply sympathetic for Logan, except for one man.

That man was Nir Rosen. Rosen is a fellow at the NYU Center for Law and Security. When he realized what he said was outrageous and others began informing him of that, he deleted his worst comments. However, some were captured using a “screen grab.”

The ones grabbed show Rosen letting everyone know that he “ran out of sympathy” for her and that everyone should “remember her role as a major war monger”. Also stating, we have to “find the humor in small things”. Rosen also deleted his bio as people began to tweet him. (click pictures to enlarge.)

These are not the kinds of things anyone should say, let alone a fellow at the NYU Center for Law and Security. If you would like to contact NYU about the matter, click this link for the contact information.

The left love to depict themselves as being “pro-woman.”  But they’re not; they hate real women unless those women are hard-core liberal feminists.  If you’re a successful and independent and accomplished woman such as a Sarah Palin, those fangs come out.  And nothing would make them happier than were Sarah Palin to be viciously gang-raped like that poor CBS correspondent in Egypt.  Nothing.

Of course, it’s the same way with the left being “pro-black.”  Unless your a black person who has any ideas of thinking for yourself.  Then you become an Aunt Jemima (e.g. Condoleeza Rice) or an Uncle Tom (e.g. Clarence Thomas) or a house negro (e.g. Colin Powell).  It doesn’t matter how successful or how accomplished you are; if you’re a conservative or even a Republican, those tolerant liberals will viciously call you a “nigger” and want to send you back to the cotton fields.

This crap never ends with the true racists among us, by which I mean liberals.  It just happened yesterday, as a liberal described successful black conservative businessman Herman Cain as a “monkey in a window” and used terms like “coon” and “sambo” to refer to him.  Every day in every way, it is LIBERALS who want to put a racial box over everyone and everything and if there’s a black person who wants to think for himself or herself, they have no compunction whatsoever of “putting that monkey in its place.”  And you remember that it was the Democrat Party that fought for slavery against Republicans who died to stop it.  And you remember that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party whose victims consisted of black people and Republicans.

And it’s not even just conservatives or Republicans.  Even liberal Hillary Clinton got “the treatment” when the more uber-liberal Obama ran against her.  She was mocked as a woman; Obama’s team played the race card on her.  These are the kind of people who will devour even their own if doing so will get them a step closer to the power to shape and control other people’s lives that they crave.

According to liberal writer and liberal university fellow Nir Rosen, CBS correspondent Lara Logan is a war monger.  And therefore it is a joyous thing that she was repeatedly violated as a woman repeatedly by the very Egyptian people that liberals hailed as being so wonderful even as the gang rape was happening.

Some liberals are more disciplined.  The fangs and the claws only come out when they believe they’ve gained the upper hand in the political debate.  Many others are just so ugly that they wear their fangs and claws and think their ugliness is lovely.  But one way or another the fangs come out and their ugliness is revealed.

The American people foolishly gave people very much like Nir Rosen a chance to govern in 2008 (I’m thinking of the open Marxists Obama appointed like Van Jones and Mark Lloyd and the many union thugs who serve as footsoldiers for Obama).  Then there are the craftier liberals like senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, who is in fact a slum lord.  These people are as thick as cockroaches in Obama’s White House.  In 2010, these same fang-bearing liberals got the most massive political asskicking since the 1920s when the people rightly saw them for what they are.

Don’t give these liberals another chance.  Because whether they’re showing it at the moment or not, there is a vile monster just beneath the surface of these people, just waiting to emerge.

Update, February 17: Nir Rosen resigned, citing a “right wing attack machine.”  Informing us that his university did not think he’d done anything to merit a reprimand (I mean, all he did was rejoice in the vicious gang-rape of a journalist), he said as his reason for leaving:

“US academic establishments are already under attack from the right, and my Center at NYU stood to be harmed by the pack of dogs sent to take me down, and I did not want to harm a very important center or the work of people I greatly admire.”

Let me first say that if you want to see a pack of dogs, take just a few moments to look through Lara  Logan’s eyes at the 200 men who jeered and celebrated while others were taking turns raping her.

I have written over a thousand articles on this blog.  You can search through them one by one; what you will find is that – as “hateful” as liberals want to claim I am – I have NEVER rejoiced in the killing, death, physical suffering or rape of a single person who had a different political ideology than my own.  And I can honestly say that if I were to come across a liberal progressive woman being raped, that I would rather be dead than not do everything I could to stop such an evil attack.

But that isn’t the way liberals like Nir Rosen think.  In fact, as I think of what the left has gleefully done to Sarah Palin or how they exhalted in the lingering death by cancer of Tony Snow, I have come to learn that many, many liberals are exactly like Rosen.

You see, liberalism and Nir Rosen are the victims.  They always see themselves as the victims, and they will use any distortion of logic and any rhetorical ju jitsu to make themselves the victims no matter what they said or did to bring righteous anger down on their own heads.  It is who they are and it is what they do.  You see, celebrating the vicious rape of a woman is a good thing as long as that woman has done something to offend liberal ideological sensibilities, and liberals are good people for pointing that out.  It’s the conservatives who don’t like rape that are the malicious attack machine.

Conservatives constantly find themselves in the difficult position of trying to reason with complete moral idiots who are about as capable of moral reasoning as cockroaches.