Posts Tagged ‘MSNBC’

‘As For Fox News, Let Her Die In Her Anger’: Interesting How Terrorist Traitors And Democrats Share The EXACT Same Attitude Toward The Mainstream Media

May 4, 2012

“As For Fox News, let her die in her anger.” –  American traitor and al Qaida terrorist Adam Gadahn.  Oh, and pretty much damn near any Democrat.

May 3, 2012, 11:28 AM
Letter Excerpts: What al Qaeda Thought of Fox News, CNN, ABC
By WSJ Staff

In a letter written in January 2011 to an unknown recipient, American al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn discussed al Qaeda’s media strategy for the 10th anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Here is an excerpt from the letter in which the spokesman discusses how to approach American media, critiques the various networks, and whether to offer a television network an exclusive interview with Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri, then al Qaeda’s second-in-command.

Here is the excerpt below. See the full letter starting on page 76 of our searchable compilation of the report and letters. Also, read the related WSJ story on the ‘Letters from Abottabad” report and letters released Thursday.

As far as the American channel that could be used to deliver our messages, whether on the tenth anniversary or before or after, in my personal opinion there are no distinct differences between the channels from the standpoint of professionalism and neutrality. It is all as the Shaykh [Osama Bin Laden] has stated (close to professionalism and neutrality) it has not and will not reach the perfect professionalism and neutrality, only if God wants that.

From the professional point of view, they are all on one level except (Fox News) channel which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks neutrality too. As for the neutrality of CNN in English, it seems to be in cooperation with the government more than the others (except Fox News of course). Its Arabic version brings good and detailed reports about al-Sahab releases, with a lot of quotations from the original text. That means they copy directly from the releases or its gist. It is not like what other channels and sites do, copying from news agencies like Reuters, AP and others.

I used to think that MSNBC channel may be good and neutral a bit, but is has lately fired two of the most famous journalists –Keith Olberman and Octavia Nasser the Lebanese – because they released some statements that were open for argument (The Lebanese had praised a Shia Imam Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah after is death and called him “One of the marvels of Hizballah” it seems she is a Shia.)

CBS channel was mentioned by the Shaykh, I see that it is like the other channels, but it has a famous program (60 Minutes) that has some popularity and a good reputation for its long
broadcasting time. Only God knows the reality, as I am not really in a position to do so.  ABC channel is all right; actually it could be one of the best channels, as far as we are concerned. It is interested in al- Qa’ida issues, particularly the journalist Brian Ross, who is specialized in terrorism. The channel is still proud for its interview with the Shaykh. It also broadcasted excerpts from a speech of mine on the fourth anniversary, it also published most of that text on its site on the internet.

In conclusion, we can say that there is no single channel that we could rely on for our messages. I may ignore them, and even the channel that broadcast them, probably it would distort them somehow. This is accomplished by bringing analysts and experts that would interpret its meaning in the way they want it to be.

Or they may ignore the message and conduct a smearing of the individuals, to the end of the list of what you know about their cunning methods.

But if the display -in the next anniversary for example- of a special type, like a special interview with Shaykh Usama or Shaykh Ayman [al-Zawahiri], and with questions chosen by the channel, and with a good camera, we might find a channel that would accept its broadcasting. But they would accept this time, so as to get an exclusive press scoop: The first press interview of Shaykh Usama or Shaykh Ayman since 10 years ago! Particularly if the Shaykh is the one to be interviewed. This is because of the scarcity of his appearance during the last nine years. Because of the poor photographic quality of the last two releases –I do not know the photo quality this time- this led those believers in conspiracy theory to speculate if the person was the Shaykh, and you may have seen the program (Ben Ladin, alive or dead?) that was broadcast by Al Jazeera.

Accordingly, a high quality speech (HD) may receive some interest by some channels in the tenth anniversary. If the quality of the new Shaykh’s speech is high, relative to the two previous speeches, you may think to compress it or take some measures to decrease the quality, to be similar to the previous ones, and I am talking seriously.

In general, and no matter what material we send, I suggest that we should distribute it to more than one channel, so that there will be healthy competition between the channels in broadcasting the material, so that no other channel takes the lead. It should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News, let her die in her anger. That is if there was no agreement with a specific channel to publish a specific material, or conduct an interview, or the like.

It’s just such a huge surprise to me that the people who most hate and despise America apprecated Keith Olbermann.  I sure hope MSNBC is listening and begs for his return since he parted ways with fellow America-hater Al Gore.

As every liberal Democrat says: “may Allah destroy Fox News that the Great Satan America will be blind to the truth and utterly perish.”

Liberals: ‘It’s Okay To Burn The Bible, Just PLEASE Don’t Burn The Holy Koran’

April 5, 2011

This is just another example of the breathtaking liberal ignorance and moral stupidity of the mainstream media.

We’ve got Time Magazine world editor Bobby Ghosh explaining on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that burning a copy of the Qur’an was “much more inflammatory than burning a Bible” because of the greater spiritual significance of the Qur’an.

Here is a transcript via Mediaite:

GHOSH: The thing to keep in mind that`s very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not — it is not the same as the Bible to Christians.

The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It`s the story of Jesus.

TODD: Yes.

GHOSH: But the Koran, if you are a believer, if you`re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.

That makes it sacred in a way that it`s hard to understand if you`re not Muslim. So the act of burning a Koran is much more — potentially much, much more inflammatory than –

TODD: Directly attacking — directly attacking God.

GHOSH: — than if you were to burn a — burn a Bible.

TODD: Directly attacking God.

If you buy Time Magazine, allow me to correctly label you a DUMBASS.  You’ve got the international editor of Time ignorantly claiming that Christians don’t believe the Bible is “the Word of God,” and you’ve got the MSNBC host first agreeing with him that the Bible is just a book written by men and then trying to help Ghosh make his point by repeatedly saying “Directly attacking God” like some kind of particularly idiotic jihadist-trained parrot.

Muslims do not claim that God wrote the Qur’an and handed it to Mohammed.  Rather, they claim that a human being wrote it under an angel named Gabriel’s direction.

Here are a number of passages – and hardly an exhaustive list by any means – about the Bible:

‘Thy word I have treasured in my heart that I might not sin against Thee’ (Psalm 119:11)

‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’ (Math 4:4).

“The word of God is alive and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword…” (Heb 4:12).

“So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11).

“For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet 1:23).

“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). 

‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

I want you to carefully note that NONE of these passages is speaking about Allah or the Qur’an.  In fact, neither existed yet.  Muhammad had not yet been born to invent him and pirate Judaism and Christianity to fabricate his own religion.  And the doctrine of the inspiration of the Holy Bible is merely one of the things that Muhammad pirated.  In addition to Abraham and Jesus, Muhammad frankly even pirated the angel Gabriel whom he claimed dictated the Qur’an to him (Daniel 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:11–19).  They ALL came from the HOLY Bible long before they had anything to do with the Qur’an.

I would submit that, given that the Qur’an plagiarized large portions of the Bible, whereas the writers of the Bible – both the human and the ultimate Divine behind their writings – would regard the Qur’an as incoherent rubbish, it should be rather obvious which of the two is truly “holy” and which is not.

I’ve read the Qu’ran.  It is virtual gibberish.  I couldn’t agree more with Robert Spencer in his description of the Qur’an in The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion:

“reading the Qur’an is in many places like walking in on a conversation between two people with whom one is only slightly acquainted.  When Islamic apologists say terrorists quote the Qur’an on jihad ‘out of context,’ they neglect to mention that the Qur’an itself often offers little context.  Frequently it makes reference to people and events without  bothering to explain what’s going on” (p. 20-21).

And Spencer proceeds to offer an example which proves just how muddy and indecipherable the Qur’an truly is.  Without a vast collection of volumes of very human Islamic tradition called the Haddith, nobody would have any idea of what is being said about what.

The Bible, by contrast, stands on its own.  And the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible.  Commentaries are certainly useful for helping one understand a few passages here or there.  But with the Qur’an, they are utterly essential for having so much as the vaguest clue.

Do you ever notice how often mainstream media “journalists” who would NEVER refer to the “holy” Bible due to their “journalistic objectivity” invariably bow and scrape before Muslims lest they be murdered for failing to say “the holy Qur’an”???

Is it merely fear, or is it that journalists – who are far more atheist than the general population – agreeing with the most fanatic jihadist Muslims that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  With said common enemy being Judeo-Christianity???

Then there’s the manner in which these “journalists” have tried to create the perception that a crackpot preacher of a tiny church is more guilty of murder than the intolerant religion of hate that just racked up another 21 innocent murder victims.

I mean, who doesn’t go attack a U.N. compound and murder people who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the thing you claim to be angry about, anyway?

Let me further ridicule the ignorant Time Magazine international editor who stupidly said that Christians don’t mind Bible burning as much because, after all, we don’t think the Bible is God’s book.  How about Jesus versus Muhammad?  Christians don’t just rightly call Jesus “the Word” (John 1:1-3), but they believe Him to be the Son of God, who assumed a human nature to free us from sin and death.  Do Muslims regard Muhammad as God?  As far as I know, they don’t.  And yet guess who didn’t turn into a murderous mob when their God was placed in a jar of urine and called “art” by secular humanist liberals???  If you guessed the same Christians who don’t erupt into a murderous frenzy whenever someone burns a Bible, you win a prize!!!

In other words, the problem isn’t so much that some nutjob burned a Qur’an; the real problem is that Muslims are murderers who can’t control their demonic urge to murder at any provocation.

Some liberals are so completely morally stupid that they think we should turn our backs with a wink and a nod while 1.6 billion Muslims annihilate Israel.  What they stupidly refuse to understand is that Israel is only the “LITTLE” Satan; America is the GREAT Satan.  We’ll have to go too.  Oh, and England will have to go.  And France.  And pretty much all of Western Europe.  And if it’s okay, anyone who doesn’t bow down and confess that Allah is greater, and Muhammad is his prophet.

As Spencer pounts out, Islam is a truly intolerant and violent religion.  Don’t burn our Qur’ans or we’ll riot and murder.  Don’t draw cartoons or we’ll riot and murderDon’t send female journalists to report the news or we’ll gang-rape and riot and murder.  Or at least beat the women with clubs.  And, of course, don’t oppose Islam or we’ll murder your women and children.  It is frankly amazing how “journalists” who claim to stand for free spech and free expression will so willingly if not eagerly censor themselves in the face of fundamentalist Islamic intolerance while so “courageously” attacking peaceful Christians and the Judeo-Christian worldview that made free speech and freedom of expression possible in the first place.

If you’re reading Time Magazine or watching MSNBC, you are trusting abject moral morons to inform you about the world.  And it’s frankly little wonder you’re so pathetically ignorant.

Finally, there’s Barack Hussein.  He falsely claims that he’s a Christian, but the man who routinely refers to “the holy Koran” has never once used the phrase “the Holy Bible” and has in fact even mocked the Bible in a way that he would never dare do to the Qur’an.

Men like Barack Obama and Bobby Ghosh are cowards and weasels.  And it’s long past time to expose them as such.

MSNBC Adds Bigoted To Its Bias: ‘You’re Ignorant Because You’re White’

March 19, 2011

This is just absolutely stunning.

MSNBC‘s Lawrence O’Donnell shows us how totally over the top rabid liberal non-Fox News networks truly are.

Here is a transcript of what this fool passes off as “journalism” today:

O’DONNELL: Perhaps all of Michele Bachmann’s staff come from her district, which may be the most ignorant Congressional district in America. In 2010, 52 percent of that district voted for Michele Bachmann to represent them in Congress. Now, she had already proven time and time again to her district and to America that she is unworthy of representing any Congressional district in America. But 52 percent, the same percentage in that district who voted for John McCain for president, voted for Michele Bachmann in 2010.

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are whiter than the average district. 92 percent white in fact.

Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters continues to take the “sane” out of O’Donnell’s insanity:

What? They’re ignorant because they’re white? Are you kidding? O’Donnell continued:

O’DONNELL: But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent white and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

Well, if that “explains nothing,” why bring it up? It’s almost like O’Donnell and his staff knew they were going too far with the 92 percent white remark, and felt they needed to soften it a little by bringing up Emerson’s district.

But the damage was already done. After all, imagine for a moment Bachmann was black, Emerson was black, these were black districts, and the commentator was a conservative:

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are blacker than the average district. 92 percent black in fact. But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent black and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

You think that would have gone over well in the black community, or would there be calls Tuesday for said conservative commentator’s immediate termination?

I guess along with feeling comfortable attacking white women as long as they’re conservative, O’Donnell now feels it’s acceptable to go after all white people.

I am so sick and disgusted with liberals.  They are completely depraved people with a completely warped view of the world.

Liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell are totally committed to postmodernism, multiculturalism and pluralism.  It’s not that they are intellecutally brainless idiots as much as it is that they have totally committed themselves to totally false theories about the world.  Like the whole “Emperor’s New Clothes” story, these “intellectuals” have convinced themselves that their theories are the stuff of genius.  Only the more they try to explain their genius theories, the more utterly idiotic they start sounding.

Let’s talk about liberals and God; more specifically about MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell, and God.  Said O’Donnell on his MSNBC soapbox:

The book of Revelation is a work of fiction describing how a truly vicious God would bring about the end of the world. No half-smart religious person actually believes the book of Revelation. They are certain that their God would never turn into a malicious torturer and mass murderer beyond Hitler’s wildest dreams. Glenn Beck, of course, does believe the book of Revelation.

There is a reason why the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).  And that is because any worldview which does not begin with a divine worldview is already wrong, and can only go more and more wrong as it continues to postulate bad answers to fundamental questions.

Our founding fathers understood this, and their understanding enabled them to found the world’s oldest democratic republic.  They realized that democracy – a limited government of the people – demanded that people be able to govern themselves.  And that only a moral and religious people could pull that off. 

They fought a war over this principle encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

And so we have the words of Adams:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

And Washington:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

But liberalism fundamentally denies this principle, and constantly seeks for the results of the French Revolution rather than the American Revolution.   They refuse to realize that the atheism-based French Revolution inevitably resulted in first chaos and madness, and then a dictator (Napolean seized power within a decade); and that France has had 11 separate Constitutions since 1793, and at least fifteen different governments.  Thomas Jefferson rightly said that, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”

But multiculturalist, pluralist, postmodernist secular humanists that dominate liberalism like Lawrence O’Donnell literally seek hell.

Can a white man be an anti-white male-bashing bigot?  You’d assume not, until you realize that people like Lawrence O’Donnell are so damn arrogant that they view themselves as transcending their own race and gender even as they claim that everyone else beneath them is a slave to their own.  But the fact of the matter is – to quote Barack Obama – “yes, we can.”  We can believe a theory that necessarily makes us hate ourselves.

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Just as Caucasian and male “journalist” Lawrence O’Donnell is clearly related to people he despises.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

So yes, we’ve got Lawrence O’Donnell, anti-white bigoted man-despising white male.

Lawrence O’Donnell is a pathological liberal ideologue.  Progressive liberal pseudo-intellectualism is rabidly anti-white and anti-man.  And so O’Donnell is those things, too.  And the fact that O’Donnell is the very things he despises is at best a minor detail to him.  Because liberals NEVER worry about inconvenient things like facts.

I would add one other element to the mix: the ingredient of self-hatred which is so necessary to liberalism.

Understand: liberals constantly agitate for policies that will bring about their nation’s certain destruction.  You don’t do that sort of thing unless you hate yourself, hate the next generation, hate your country, and literally embrace your own extinction.

At some deep subconscious level, liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell recognize that they are swine, that they are nasty, nasty people.  And from that point forward everything else just sort of oozes out of them like toxic slime from a poorly-designed container.

MSNBC has the right to broadcast.  Unlike the fascist liberals who constantly agitate to force Rush Limbaugh and Fox News off the air with oxymoronic legislations such as “the fairness doctrine,” I accept that right.  But that doesn’t mean anyone but fools need to watch it.

Who Won The Debate? Fox News Goes Through The Roof; Keith Olberman Goes Way Of Dodo Bird

January 22, 2011

Keith Olbermann just got his walking papersMSNBC just announced that it was ending its contract with him.  “Countdown” was appropriately very well named: 5-4-3-2-1-phhfffft.

Olbermann has a book titled, Pitchforks and Torches: The Worst of the Worst, from Beck, Bill, and Bush to Palin and Other Posturing Republicans.  Well, let’s look at those “posturing Republicans.”  The question becomes, “Which monster did the townsfolk actually drive away from their village?” Bush is thriving, with polls saying more and more Americans are wishing he were still president, a memoir that will now almost certainly outsell Bill Clinton’s and a generally happy disposition.  Bill O’Reilly continues to dominate.  Sarah Palin is doing just peachy, thank you.  And Glenn Beck?  Liberals are all over the web as we speak posting that Glenn Beck’s ratings have taken a giant dive.  But here’s the facts for Beck in his time slot:

Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC GLENN BECK 1,920 452 933
CNN SITUATION ROOM 490 130 183
MSNBC HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS 603 93 187
CNBC FAST MONEY 288 53 134
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT 176 71 91

Glenn Beck’s Fox News program is doing considerably better than the next four programs combined.  It looks like he’s just hurting so bad, doesn’t it?

Liberals like Keith Olbermann have their hysterical shrillness, their poisonous fang-dripping hate and their hypocrisy.  Fox News has actual ratings.

Look at the most recent ratings: FNC, for the record, means “Fox News Channel.”  Do you notice how they dominate every single time slot?

The quite left-leaning Public Policy Polling found Fox News “the most trusted” in last years’ survey.  According to their survey this year, Fox has slipped.  But, first of all, read this.  And second of all, just take another look at the ratings.

Dinesh D’Souza, in his great book What’s So Great About Christianity, begins his first chapter with these words:

God has come back to life.  The world is witnessing a huge explosion of religious conversion and growth, and Christianity is growing faster than any other religion.  Nietzsche’s proclamation “God is dead” is now proven false.  Nietzsche is dead.  The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population.  Secularism has lost its identification with progress and modernity, and consequently has lost the main source of its appeal.  God is very much alive, and His future prospects look to be excellent.  This is the biggest comeback story of the twenty-first century.

D’Souza proceeds to document that claim with facts that will make atheists weep and gnash their little rodent fangs.  [You can read the chapter here].  Secular humanists long claimed that the progression of reason and science would conquer religious “superstition.”  It was a groundless and distorted comparison that is now demonstrated to be a lie, another fairy tale myth of secularism.

Now I cite the beginning of a Human Events article titled, “The Conservative Undead“:

“American political parties have disappeared before,” Keith Olbermann warned Republicans in a 2009 “special comment.” The suspended MSNBC host histrionically continued, “You’re rapidly moving from the party of no conscience towards the party of no relevancy. You are behind the wheel of a political Toyota, and before the midterms you will be reduced to obviously being this generation’s home for the nuts.

To play off D’Souza, “Olbermann’s proclamation ‘The Republican Party is dead’ is now proven false.  Olbermann is dead.”

And to allude to a song from The Wizard of Oz: “Ding-Dong.”  It’s about time.

When it comes to liberals a line out of Willie Wonka puts it best: in a world of pure imagination, what you see will defy explanation.

Keith Olbermann Demonizes Fox News As Biased; Gets Caught Donating Max Amount To Über-Liberal Democrats

November 6, 2010

Fox News is biased.  It’s advocacy journalism.

But don’t believe me.  Believe Keith Olbermann.  Now there’s a fair-minded journalist for you.

Oops:

Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats
By SIMMI AUJLA | 11/5/10 6:00 AM EDT Updated: 11/5/10 6:22 PM EDT

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay after POLITICO reported that he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

The network originally announced that Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation, was going to fill in for Olbermann. But the network announced late Friday that Hayes would not be the substitute host, after Hayes’ previous donations to two Democratic candidates in 2008 and 2009 came to light. [...]

Olbermann is one of MSNBC’s most recognizable faces, and has emerged as one of the country’s most prominent liberal commentators. A former ESPN star, Olbermann’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” started in 2003 as a traditional news show but evolved into a left-leaning opinion program – and in some ways, led the network into its new identity as the cable-news voice of the left and an attempt to be a counterweight to Fox News. [...]

Inside MSNBC, employees were shocked at the news of Olbermann’s suspension. Despite a reputation for a prickly personality off-air, Olbermann was given wide berth inside the network because of his stature – and his ratings. [...]

In addition, Olbermann has been a critic of the political donations made by Fox News’s parent company, News Corp., which contributed $1 million each to a pair of organizations trying to defeat Democratic candidates.

You’d think that Olbermann’s head (and the heads of every liberal) would explode from trying to contain all the hypocritical contradictions.

I must point out that this story about Olbermann follows the revelation that “journalists” at a CBS affiliate actively sought to find stories damaging to Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller out of an obviously blatantly partisan and ideological mindset.

As for the News Corp. donation, Keith Olbermann, objective journalist extraordinaire, railed as follows:

Oct. 7 — On his MSNBC show, “Countdown,” Olbermann went after News Corp. and Fox News, highlighting the political donation and describing the network as “a national cable news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view … and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party.”

What’s it like to walk around without a single honest bone in your entire body, Keith?

And which Democrats did Keith Olbermann choose to give to?  Was it those decent, moderate Democrats?

Nope.  Rabid, rabid liberals.

Meet Raul Grijalva:

It is well-documented in this space that Raul Grijalva is known for stealing his political opponents’ yard signs, even back in the early days when he ran for school board and Pima County Board of Supervisors.

So should it surprise us that his congressional campaign uses the same dirty tricks?

Read the KGUN 9 story and watch their news report below:

Gabby Mercer, a naturalized American citizen from Mexico, went with a few other military wives to Raul Grijalva’s campaign office to ask Grijalva about his stance on the wars.

What she found shocked her: In the trunk of the car owned by Ruben Reyes — Grijalva’s chief of staff and husband to city councilwoman Regina Romero — was a stack of Ruth McClung signs that he had stolen. So she filed a police report.

Here is page one, page two, and page three of the police report.

Here is the Arizona Daily Star’s write-up:

A campaign volunteer for several Republican candidates filed a Tucson police complaint Wednesday, alleging theft of Ruth McClung’s campaign signs by a staff member of U.S. Congressman Raúl Grijalva.

Gabriela Mercer, 46, said she saw two political campaign signs in the back of district director’s Ruben Reyes’ vehicle.

Mercer, who has a daughter serving in the Marines on her second tour in Afghanistan, had visited Grijalva’s congressional office with a small group of military parents to ask for information about his stance on war. She and two others then headed to his campaign office, hoping to speak with him there.

As Reyes approached them to tell them their issue was being resolved, he opened the back of his sports utility vehicle, where two yard signs were visible.

Mercer, who has volunteered for both Republican congressional candidates McClung and Jesse Kelly, said when she asked why he had them, Reyes became defensive and eventually said he was going to “put them up.”

She said she found it “unbelievable” that a high-ranking staffer would steal a political opponent’s signs.

And what happened to Gabby Mercer?  She came out of a speaking engagement to find a rock had been thrown through her back window.

In addition, this noble candidate who is getting Keith Olbermann’s money was caught committing widespread voter fraud.

And Grijalva is the kind of race-baiter who is not above using racism to attack his Caucasian – or should I say “white bread” – opponent.

Jack Conway?  How about his “Aqua Buddha” ad that was so vile it probably derailed his entire candidacy.  Even the liberal New Republic characterized Conway’s vicious attack piece as “The ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year.”

As for Gabrielle Giffords, all I have to say is “Nancy Pelosi.”  Giffords has been described as a Pelosi protegee, and was a doctrinaire liberal who voted with Pelosi 94% of the time.

You can see why Keith Olbermann would support such toad.  Because lowlifes flock together.

For a personal note, I don’t mind journalists donating to political causes or to politicians.  In fact, I’m all in favor of it.  It’s not like these “journalists” don’t have political opinions merely because of some network policy against political donations.  I prefer knowing where these people are coming from to having some bogus facade of “objectivity.”

Meet The Biggest Bigots In America: The Mainstream Media

October 15, 2010

Question: what is a “bigot”?

big·ot     noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So, bigots are people who are intolerantly devoted to their own views, and who treat members of certain groups with hatred and intolerance.

Meet the worst bigots in America: the mainstream media, the ideological home of liberal progressives.

Few signs at tea party rally expressed racially charged anti-Obama themes
By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 14, 2010; 6:00 AM

A new analysis of political signs displayed at a tea party rally in Washington last month reveals that the vast majority of activists expressed narrow concerns about the government’s economic and spending policies and steered clear of the racially charged anti-Obama messages that have helped define some media coverage of such events.

Emily Ekins, a graduate student at UCLA, conducted the survey at the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington last month by scouring the crowd, row by row and hour by hour, and taking a picture of every sign she passed.

Ekins photographed about 250 signs, and more than half of those she saw reflected a “limited government ethos,” she found – touching on such topics as the role of government, liberty, taxes, spending, deficit and concern about socialism. Examples ranged from the simple message “$top the $pending” scrawled in black-marker block letters to more elaborate drawings of bar charts, stop signs and one poster with the slogan “Socialism is Legal Theft” and a stick-figure socialist pointing a gun at the head of a taxpayer.

There were uglier messages, too – including “Obama Bin Lyin’ – Impeach Now” and “Somewhere in Kenya a Village is Missing its Idiot.” But Ekins’s analysis showed that only about a quarter of all signs reflected direct anger with Obama. Only 5 percent of the total mentioned the president’s race or religion, and slightly more than 1 percent questioned his American citizenship.

Ekins’s conclusion is not that the racially charged messages are unimportant but that media coverage of tea party rallies over the past year have focused so heavily on the more controversial signs that it has contributed to the perception that such content dominates the tea party movement more than it actually does.

“Really this is an issue of salience,” Ekins said. “Just because a couple of percentage points of signs have those messages doesn’t mean the other people don’t share those views, but it doesn’t mean they do, either. But when 25 percent of the coverage is devoted to those signs, it suggests that this is the issue that 25 percent of people think is so important that they’re going to put it on a sign, when it’s actually only a couple of people.”

[...]

Adam Brandon, a spokesman for FreedomWorks, said his organization did not instruct protesters to limit their messages to fiscal slogans, but he did patrol the crowd and threw out a few protesters carrying signs depicting Obama as Adolf Hitler.

If you want to look at the face of one of the most dangerous and most damaging bigots in America today, you can do so from your very own home.  Just turn on the television and watch the news.  And there is a very good chance that you will be looking at the glassy-eyed, glib face of a bigot.

Journalists are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their opinions and prejudices.  As a matter of routine, they regard or treat the members of a group (conservatives and their sub-groups, such as Christians and Tea Party supporters) with hatred and intolerance.

They don’t accurately or honestly report the facts; they slant the news with their bigotry.

I wrote an article nearly a year-and-a-half ago that began thus:

I didn’t even know what “teabagging” was in the nasty sense until CNN’s Anderson Cooper (“It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging“), MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann (“the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals“) – and numerous others just like them – used the term as a rhetorical propaganda polemic to attack and ridicule hundreds of thousands of Tea Party demonstrators simply because something about tea parties sounded similar to something that warped liberals did to one another.

But now that I know what it is, lefties can go teabag themselves.  It’s pretty much who they are anyway.

CNN’s Susan Roesgen, who handpicked protesters at the Tea Parties and attempted to argue with their political views rather than simply report on the event like a legitimate journalist would have done, is a classic piece of agenda-driven propaganda masqeurading as news these days.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who put failed radio host Janeane Garofalo on his “Countdown” program so he could join with her in agreeing that everyone who attended a Tea Party was a racist who couldn’t stand a black man being president; and put on Michael Musto so he could agree with Musto’s rabid description of Miss California Carrie Prejean as a homophobic female transsexual for honestly answering a simple question about gay marriage.  This, of course, isn’t “news.”  It’s not even “propaganda.”  It’s simply naked hate.

In another shocking base of media bigotry revealed, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez – who fraudulently reported as fact “bigoted” statements that Rush Limbaugh never made – proceeded to demonstrate on air that he – and NOT Rush Limbaugh – was the real bigot.

CNN recently fired Sanchez for his “them Jews” talk, but they had been fine with his previous blatant display of anti-conservative bigotry that had resulted in slanderous statements that made a mockery of the journalistic integrity of his entire mainstream media network.

Being a “journalist” today has virtually become synonymous with being a “bigot.”

And the only difference between a garden variety bigot and a journalist is that the former don’t have a large forum, whereas the latter get to spread their hate and lies on mass media.

The final question is this: if you constantly voluntarily watch bigots and agree with their views, then what are you?

Rabid, Frothing, Anti-Conservative Mainstream Media Once Again Shows How Full Of Hypocrisy They Are

April 5, 2010

As usual the most recent flare-up began with Obama, the most polarizing President in history.  He says jump, and his rabid reporter rodents ask, “How high?”

(CBS) President Obama has noticed the “vitriol” in the nation’s political atmosphere these days and says it’s time both sides cooled it.

In a brief interview with “The Early Show” co-anchor Harry Smith Thursday before they shot some hoops on the White House basketball court, Mr. Obama called the extreme nature of some of the barbs directed his way on conservative talk shows “troublesome.” He also said he’s “concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized” – an observation meant for both Republicans and Democrats.

The remarks came in response to Smith telling him he’s been listening to talk radio and “the kindest of terms you’re sometimes referred to out in America is ‘a Socialist.’ The worst of which I’ve heard is — called ‘a Nazi.”‘

Asked by Smith whether he’s “aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation” about him, Mr. Obama replied, “Well — I mean, I think that — when you’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck it’s …”

“It’s beyond that,” Smith interjected.

“It’s pretty – apparent,” the president continued, “and — it’s troublesome. But — you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of — this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when — you’ve got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling that there’s a lot of change that needs to take place. But that’s not the vast majority of Americans.”

We don’t know what Harry Smith was going to say after, “It’s beyond that.”  It would seem he was going to point out the obvious fact that a LOT more people than just Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck listeners are white hot angry with Obama, based on all the polls.  I would further point out that as someone who routinely listens to both programs I am fairly certain that neither Limbaugh or Beck have EVER called Obama a “Nazi,” and that in point of fact Obama is quite actually demonizing Limbaugh and Beck in making that implication.

Obama says we should cool the “vitriol,” and then immediately starts vitriolically demagoguery conservatives.  I would tell Obama that if he doesn’t like vitriol, maybe he should stop using it so damn much.  And if he doesn’t like demonization, why won’t he quit demonizing?

You want to know who DID specifically label the president a Nazi?

You want to hear another one?  How about MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann, who, in a rant specifically directed at George Bush said:

“There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.  You‘re a fascist—get them to print you a T-shirt with “fascist” on it.”

Then there was Sheldon Drobny, the financial power behind the ultimately failed liberal radio station Air America.  He writes that “Very few Americans know that Prescott Bush, our president’s grandfather, supplied Nazi Germany with such assistance.”  Based on what historical source?  Lyndon LaRouche, socialist meathead.  In the same article, Air America’s founder says:

The corporate masters and their current spokesman, George W. Bush, promote a dangerous policy of pre-emptive warfare.  They use exactly the same excuses Hitler used to sell to the public his maniacal desire to conquer Europe.  The real power for Hitler came from his corporate backers, who willingly supplied him the tools to execute his plan, their reward being profit.

You want to know which major political power player really was a Nazi in every single sense of the word?  Try George Soros.  The guy who has funded The Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, Democracy Alliance, America Coming Together, and Media Matters.  There are other liberal organizations such as the Fund for America and the Tides Foundation.

Anyway, Chris Matthews apparently heard Obama talk about conservative “vitriol” and the name “Rush Limbaugh” and took it as a command from his messiah who makes his leg tingle to demonize Rush Limbaugh for whatever Matthews could twist as being “vitriolic.”  And the evil-monger word of the day became “regime.”

Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and the ‘regime’ question
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
04/03/10 8:08 PM EDT

On Friday, I asked Rush Limbaugh for his response to President Obama’s description of him as “troublesome” and of his program as “vitriol.” Limbaugh told me he does not believe Obama is trying to do what is best for the country and added, “Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely.”

By using the word “regime,” Limbaugh was doing something he does all the time: throwing the language of the opposition back in their faces. In the Bush years, we often heard the phrase “Bush regime” from some quarters of the left. So Limbaugh applied it to Obama.

Apparently some people didn’t get it. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews appeared deeply troubled by the word. “I’ve never seen language like this in the American press,” he said, “referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election — we will have another one in November, we’ll have another one for president in a couple years — fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, ‘regime.’ It was used by George Bush, ‘regime change.’ You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They’re juntas. They’re military coups. The use of the word ‘regime’ in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it.”

Matthews didn’t stop there. “I never heard the word ‘regime,’ before, have you?” he said to NBC’s Chuck Todd. “I don’t even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a ‘regime.’”

It appears that Matthews has suffered a major memory loss. I don’t have the facilities to search for every utterance of Joe McCarthy, but a look at more recent times reveals many, many, many examples of the phrase “Bush regime.” In fact, a search of the Nexis database for “Bush regime” yields 6,769 examples from January 20, 2001 to the present.

It was used 16 times in the New York Times, beginning with an April 4, 2001 column by Maureen Dowd — who wrote, “Seventy-five days into the Bush regime and I’m a wreck” — and ending with a March 6, 2009 editorial denouncing the “frightening legal claim advanced by the Bush regime to justify holding [accused terrorist Ali al-Marri].”

“Bush regime” was used 24 times in the Washington Post, beginning with a January 22, 2001 profile of Marshall Wittmann by Howard Kurtz — who noted that Wittmann served as “a Health and Human Services deputy assistant secretary in the first Bush regime” — and ending with an October 6, 2009 column by Dana Milbank which quoted far-left antiwar protester Medea Benjamin questioning whether the Obama administration “looks very different from the Bush regime.”

Perhaps Matthews missed all of those references. If he did, he still might have heard the phrase the many times it was uttered on his own network, MSNBC. For example, on January 8 of this year, Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak said that, “In George Bush’s regime, only one million jobs had been created…” On August 21, 2009, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz referred to something that happened in 2006, when “the Bush regime was still in power.” On October 8, 2007, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that “the middle class has not fared quite as well under Bush regime as…” On August 10, 2007, MSNBC played a clip of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan referring to “the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by the Bush regime.” On September 21, 2006, a guest referred to liberals “expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime.” On July 7, 2004, Ralph Nader — appearing with Matthews on “Hardball” — discussed how he would “take apart the Bush regime.” On May 26, 2003, Joe Scarborough noted a left-wing website that “has published a deck of Bush regime playing cards.” A September 26, 2002 program featured a viewer email that said, “The Bush regime rhetoric gets goofier and more desperate every day.”

Finally — you knew this was coming — on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror. “Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,” Matthews said. “Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?”

Oops. Perhaps Joe McCarthy never called the U.S. government a regime, but Chris Matthews did. And a lot of other people did, too. So now we are supposed to believe him when he expresses disgust at Rush Limbaugh doing the same?

In other words, at the very, very worst, the left can really only accuse the right of doing the very things that the left themselves have repeatedly done.  They are in effect saying, “How DARE you be loathsome vile cockroaches like us!  WE’RE the loathsome vile cockroaches in this country.  That’s OUR THING!!!”

If the mainstream media were in any way honest, they would be reporting, “Left accuses right of being nearly as vile as left.”  But they AREN’T honest.  So they report Bart Stupak’s receiving hateful phone calls from the right after voting for ObamaCare, but ignore the fact that Stupak received hateful phone calls from the left when he said he would vote against ObamaCare.

The media is largely comprised of fundamentally dishonest people distorting the actual picture due to very-left-of-center political ideology and worldview.

The mainline media does this crap so often it’s beyond amazing.  They report mere contrived allegations of “right wing” violence even as they ignored documented facts of left wing violence.  As one example, it was widely presented in the media that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon at a tea party rally.  It was assumed as a fact even though there was no actual evidence of spitting, and even Rep. Cleaver refused to claim that he had been spat at.  No matter: the demagogic allegation was enough.

Then there was the Sarah Palin “crosshairs” charge.  Sarah Palin used “targets” to “threaten” Democrats in vulnerable districts.  Oh, how the media frothed over THAT.  Of course, the same media that reported again and again that Sarah Palin was a dangerous extremist refused to report on the fact that both the Democrat Leadership Committee and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had used crosshair symbols on THEIR maps.  As opposed to Sarah Palin, who had actually merely used surveyor’s symbols.

And Sarah Palin’s “reload” comment was every bit as “hateful” or “inciting” as Barack Obama’s “Fired up!”  His statement was properly understood in context, while Sarah Palin’s statement was stripped of context and demonized, but a fundamentally dishonest media.

Most of the mainstream media are not journalists.  They are propagandists.

And the double-standard they constantly fall back upon is demonic.

Judd Gregg Explodes On Slandering Media Bias That GOP Would Cut Education

January 29, 2010

It’s getting harder and harder to watch the mainstream media anymore without realizing that they are the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.  Case in point:

GOP Senator Rips Into MSNBC Host For ‘Absurd,’ ‘Dishonest,’ Statements
By Kyle Drennen
01/28/2010

On the soon-to-be canceled ‘It’s the Economy’ program on MSNBC on Thursday, co-host Contessa Brewer grilled Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg on his calls to reduce out-of-control government spending: “Which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?” Gregg shot back: “What an absurd statement to make. And what a dishonest statement to make.”

Gregg called out Brewer for her unfair framing of the issue: “…nobody’s saying no money for schools….On it’s face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.” He went to explain the kinds of budget cuts he would make: “I would freeze discretionary spending, a real freeze, not a – not a freeze plus inflation. I would eliminate the T.A.R.P. money….I would end the stimulus spending effective in June of this year, if not sooner….reform our entitlement programs….I’ve made very specific proposals and I’m willing to stand by them.”

Gregg was far from finished, he described the big government mentality shared by the Obama administration and the liberal media: “The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is that economic prosperity is created by growing the government dramatically. And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they’re going to – that if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education.”

Brewer attempted to deny suggesting that Gregg wanted to cut funding for schools: “That’s not what I said.” Gregg continued undeterred: “I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter, probably in a month….And there are a lot of irresponsible statements made by reporters and that was the most irresponsible I’ve heard.”

Fellow co-host Melissa Francis ran to Brewer’s defense: “Senator, with respect, that’s not what she said, she was asking you what you would like to cut specifically.” Gregg replied: “That’s exactly what she said, go back and read your transcript.”

Brewer then attempted to end the interview: “We appreciate your time today-” Gregg kept going: “You can’t be duplicitous about this. You can’t make a representation and then claim you didn’t make it. You know, it just shouldn’t work that way. You’ve got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.”

Gregg reiterated: “…you’re suggesting we should have a zero – zero in education. Well, of course, nobody’s suggesting that. Nobody’s even implying that. But in your introduction to me, you said that, that education funding would be cut.” Brewer again denied making that exact  implication: “No, I didn’t.” She then concluded the interview: “Senator, I’m sorry for any mis-communication that we’ve had. And as always, we appreciate your time, we appreciate you sharing your particular perspective on what should be done to take America into a prosperous future. Thank you.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

2:33PM

CONTESSA BREWER: Let’s bring in now Republican Judd Gregg, the Senator of New Hampshire, the top Republican now on the Budget Committee and a member of the Senate Banking Committee. What do you think about the money the President is proposing to spend on jobs and what [National Urban League President] Mark [Morial] was just saying that it has to go hand in hand with other programs that integrate job training, vocational skills, and certainly educating very young people.

JUDD GREGG: Well, we’re running a 3 point – a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. The government’s going to spend over $3 trillion. All of that deficit goes into the debt, which has to be paid by our children and our children’s children. I think somebody’s got to ask a more fundamental question, how are you going to get the economy going if you run up the debt to a point where we can’t afford our government? That, I think, is a much more fundamental question.

If you want to do something to energize this economy, I think you put in place some plans which control the rate of government, so the people can have confidence that we as a nation are not going to go into some form of fiscal bankruptcy in five to seven years. And that will cause people to be willing to invest, to be willing to take risks, and to be willing to create jobs. Jobs are not created by the government. You know, long-term good jobs are created by a vibrant economy. And you don’t get a vibrant economy when the government and the size of the government and the debt of the government is overwhelming the capacity of the economy to function well.

MELISSA FRANCIS: That’s good in theory, Senator. How would you practically-

GREGG: It’s not theory. It’s not theory.

FRANCIS: How would you – well, tell me-

GREGG: Don’t tell me that it’s good in theory.

FRANCIS: Well, tell me how to put it to work. Tell me – tell me very practically-

GREGG: No, you don’t tell me it’s good in theory. What are you – how do you get off saying something like that? Good in theory?

FRANCIS: Because it is good in theory. It is, it’s fantastic.

GREGG: Oh, of course.

FRANCIS: So tell me how to practically – here’s your opportunity, Senator, let me finish, to tell us how to practically put it to work. I’m all for small government.

GREGG: Well, you stop – you stop the spending spree. You stop growing government so fast that you can’t afford to pay for it. You don’t increase the size of the government from 20% of GDP to 25% of GDP in two years. You don’t add a trillion dollars of new debt to the – to our kid’s back every year for the next ten years. You don’t pass a budget – the President doesn’t send up a budget which increases – doubles the debt in five years, triples it in ten years. You don’t say that you’re for fiscal responsibility and then propose a whole panoply of new programs which you can’t pay for. That’s not theory, that’s reality. That’s what we’re facing as a nation.

BREWER: So when – when-

GREGG: The reality of a fiscal meltdown of our country which is going to have a massive impact on people’s lives and especially cost a lot of jobs in this country.

BREWER: So my partner, Melissa, Senator Gregg, is really asking for specifics. If you don’t believe that we should have a $1.3 trillion budget, which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you? Do you – and do you side then, with those who say – I mean, you look back at the Great Depression, economists say we landed back into real problems in 1937 when people got onto cutting a deficit and a lot of government spending was pulled back before it should have been.

GREGG: Well, first off nobody’s saying no money for schools. What an absurd statement to make.

BREWER: Well, I’m asking-

GREGG: And what a dishonest statement to make.

BREWER: What we both are-

GREGG: On it’s face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.

BREWER: Senator Gregg, what we’re both asking, is which programs you expect to cut?

FRANCIS: Tell us what to cut.

GREGG: I mean do you know how much money we’re spending at the federal government on education this year?

BREWER: Which – Senator, you’re going to be asked to cut certain programs if you’re on the Senate Banking Committee, which programs would you cut?

FRANCIS: Just tell us, what do you want to cut?

GREGG: Oh I have no problem telling you, I would freeze discretionary spending, a real freeze, not a – not a freeze plus inflation. I would eliminate the T.A.R.P. money, which would get us close to $400 billion. I would end the stimulus spending effective in June of this year, if not sooner, so that we can recover all the money that’s going to be spent outside the window of this recession. And we shouldn’t be spending it and adding it to the debt. I would take a major effort to reform our entitlement programs, in fact yesterday, or the day before yesterday, we had a vote to try to do that under a bill which I proposed with Senator Conrad. I’ve made very specific proposals and I’m willing to stand by them. The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is that economic prosperity is created by growing the government dramatically. And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they’re going to – that if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education.

BREWER: That’s not what I said

GREGG: I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter, probably in a month.

BREWER: It wasn’t a statement, it was a question.

GREGG: And there are a lot of irresponsible statements made by reporters and that was the most irresponsible I’ve heard.

FRANCIS: Senator, with respect, that’s not what she said, she was asking you what you would like to cut specifically.

GREGG: No, that’s what she said.

FRANCIS: And I think you answered the question.

BREWER: We appreciate your time-

GREGG: That’s exactly what she said, go back and read your transcript.

BREWER: We appreciate your time today-

GREGG: You can’t be duplicitous about this. You can’t make a representation and then claim you didn’t make it. You know, it just shouldn’t work that way. You’ve got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.

FRANCIS: She asked you what you would like to cut. She asked you if you’d like to cut schools. You said no. It was a question and answer.

GREGG: No, you’re suggesting we should have a zero – zero in education. Well, of course, nobody’s suggesting that. Nobody’s even implying that. But in your introduction to me, you said that, that education funding would be cut.

BREWER: No, I didn’t.

GREGG: Well, education funding isn’t going to be cut. Yes you did.

BREWER: Senator, I’m sorry for any mis-communication that we’ve had. And as always, we appreciate your time, we appreciate you sharing your particular perspective on what should be done to take America into a prosperous future. Thank you.

GREGG: Thank you.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

For the record, Contessa Brewer, you did.  Your words:

“Which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?”

The video of this all-too-common demonstration of rampant leftwing media bias is available at Newsbusters.

I hope Judd Gregg confronting the liar and calling Contessa Brewer out for the propagandist she is marks a new rule for dealing with the leftwing media.

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

January 27, 2010

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.

Government-Funded NPR Tries To Force Mara Liasson Off Fox News To Please White House Ownership

December 8, 2009

I have to say I find NPR’s thesis rather asinine.  Mara Liasson is presumably an objective journalists by their standards, considering that they hired her and have continued to employ her for years.  And to make it even more ridiculous, she has been part of Fox News since 1997.  But on their view, Fox News having Mara appear on their show to offer her objective opinion in a panel along with others somehow enables Fox News’ “bias.”  All of a sudden, and out of the blue.  And strangely timed to synchronize with the White House attack on Fox News (not to mention the 1st Amendment).

NPR reporter pressured over Fox role
By: Josh Gerstein
December 6, 2009 10:36 PM EST

Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the network’s supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s “Special Report” and “Fox News Sunday” came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party.

One source said the White House’s criticism of Fox was raised during the discussions with Liasson. However, an NPR spokeswoman told POLITICO that the Obama administration’s attempts to discourage other news outlets from treating Fox as a peer had no impact on any internal discussions at NPR.

Fox News has Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on their station, it is true.  But unlike Bill Moyers and his ilk, neither of them present themselves as “journalists.”  They offer their opinion on opinion programming.  The clear distinction between “news” and “opinion” becomes another yet another IQ test that liberals simply can’t pass.

To the best of my knowledge, Mara Liasson has never ONCE appeared on either Glenn Beck’s or Sean Hannity’s programs.  She has appeared on Fox News Special Report with Brett Baier and with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.  Unlike the Kool-aid-drinking mainstream media, Mara has been smart enough to understand the difference between news and op-ed, and she has remained on the news side.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media’s malicious and dishonest smearing of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh was apparently NOT “biased.”  CNN’s “fact checking” of an SNL sketch critical of Obama (while hypocritically ignoring months of unrelenting SNL sketch attacks against Sarah Palin) was NOT “biased.”  The mainstream medias’ frequent “reporting” about conservatives “organizing” while simultaneously ignoring PAID liberal activists’ organizing was NOT “biased.”

Take a gander at MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s bias (see HERE and HERE) and then recognize that he is immediately followed by Rachel Maddow (see here and here), who is nearly as bad.  There’s your Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on steroids.

The mainstream media seem to love bias and propaganda, just as long as it is LIBERAL bias and propaganda.  And anything LESS THAN liberal bias and propaganda sends them into a hissy fit of galactic proportions.

The NPR people have been trying to force Mara Liasson off of Fox at the same exact time that Obama demonstrates his naked contempt for a free press in his attacks against Fox News – even acknowledging that they used the White House attack to attack Liasson – and then display their chutzpah by asserting that the two events had absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I was holding the smoking gun when they found me standing over the body.  But the two events have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

The Obama administration has literally been fascist in its attempt to attack any news outlet that refuses to unquestioningly advance its propaganda.  And the mainstream media have been pathologically tilted to the political left (as Bernie Goldberg details in his book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media), but insanely continue to focus on the splinter in Fox News’ eye while ignoring the gigantic log in their own.

You can go back a few years ago and find NPR executives actually admitting they had a liberal bias.

The NPR ombudsman responded to a Pew study that challenged the liberal bias of the mainstream media by saying this:

There is much that can be pointed to as examples of inherent bias in the media — including NPR.

The media — as a class — tends to be remarkably homogeneous. As an NPR editor pointed out to me recently, “How many of our journalists have ever operated a business?” The poll indirectly points to the need for more diversity in our newsrooms — both intellectual and cultural. [...]

This poll may have been done correctly, but in this one aspect — questioning the professionalism of journalists — the result will be a disservice to American journalists and journalism. In order to avoid the “liberal bias” accusation, some journalists might feel there is safety in pack journalism and that is likely to have a chilling effect on tough, independent journalism.

The media and its management have an obligation to maintain a skeptical and adversarial role to whatever party is in power. This poll could discourage that by implying that journalists will always let their personal politics trump their professional obligations.

Keep in mind that for much of the 2008 election campaign, and for most of Obama’s presidency, Fox News was basically the ONLY “adversarial” voice.  Fox News has in fact stood alone in avoiding the “pack journalism” that the rest of the mainstream media has pursued.  Which is to say, Fox News has actually done exactly those things that the NPR ombudsman argued that the media had to do.

Nevertheless, in spite of that admission, NPR has continued in its bias.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough pointed that liberal bias out in the discussion over NPR’s pressuring of Mara Liasson.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well I just want to say, I love NPR and I listen to NPR, but I’ve been listening to reformed, pot-smoking hippies for the past thirty years on NPR with a very substantial left-wing bias – and I don’t care that they eat tree bark like Euell Gibbons, and I don’t care if they are still smoking pot in their sixties. They put on great radio. But for NPR – for NPR, the leadership at NPR to question the bias of Fox News is a joke. They have been biased – again, I still listen to them, because like “The New York Times” they are the best at what they do. But, please, that is a laugh.  NPR -

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It’s very soothing listening, too.

SCARBOROUGH: It is soothing, it is very soothing.  Just put a mirror to your face, NPR.

Instead of pressuring Mara Liasson to leave Fox – which only reveals your own liberal bias – why don’t you take Joe Scarborough’s advice and put a mirror to your own face instead, NPR?

A few other articles that very relate to the current White House attempt to attack and undermine Fox News and a free press:

More Self-Referentially Absurd Claims Of Fox News Bias

White House Ignores War In Afghanistan To Purse New War On Fox News

Anti-Free-Press Obama Demagogue Anita Dunn A Self-Admitted Marxist


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers