Posts Tagged ‘MSNBC’

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

Why Is West Point The ‘Enemy Camp’ For Barack Obama?

December 2, 2009

MSNBC‘s Chris Matthews put it into crystal-clear perspective.  When Barack Obama gave his Afghanistan speech at West Point, he was entering “the enemy camp.”

That is a shocking admission, coming from the Obama-approved media.

You can understand it being “enemy territory” if Obama were to go to Afghanistan and address a Taliban training camp.  But West Point?  A U.S. military academy?  Just what kind of president is this man that his own military must be regarded as “the enemy”?

How is this not profoundly wrong?

Now, you might argue that Chris Matthews is just using a metaphor.  But it is simply a fact that Matthews is pretty clear that the West Point cadets did not positively respond to what Obama said to them.  They didn’t receive him well.  They don’t like his agenda.  And maybe they don’t even like him.

Liberals might regard that as a positive point about this president.  A liberal high school LATIN teacher asked a 17-year old future West Point cadet, “Why would you want to become a mindless killing machine?”

I have to share the young man’s answer to that despicable teacher, in the words of his proud father:

But our son looked at this guy in the eye and said, “Sir, there are people out there who want to kill us and I feel like I’m called to keep that from happening,” and I’d like to add that it only took them about two seconds to identify the mission, not three months, and he’s only 17.  You can imagine how much pride I feel in him for making such a statement and how outraged I was his teacher would even ask him that.

Like I said: liberals might regard it as a wonderful thing that the President of the United States would have a hostile relationship with the United States military.  I regard it as an damning indictment against a less-than-pathetic commander-in-chief that the guardians of our freedom who sacrifice themselves so that others might live free neither like him nor respect him.

Obama-approved mouthpiece Chris Matthews is correct in asserting that the United States military is like an enemy camp to Barack Obama.

Obama gave his speech at West Point in order to use the venue as a photo-op, and in fact to co-opt the cadets into appearing to support his policies.

It didn’t exactly work, as Der Speigel pointed out:

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

Let us put aside that this order, or “suggestion,” is yet another example of the same sort of “politically-correct” postmodernist multiculturalism that the Obama-warped military establishment accorded to a Muslim officer who was promoted even though he had been in contact with al-Qaeda some thirty times, and had an acronym for “soldier of Allah” emblazoned on his business cards.  (Not to mention the fact that the military has now so degenerated into political correctness that it is now treating terrorists like citizens, and Navy SEALs like terrorists).

What is wrong with this president that our future Army officers have to literally be told to be “enthusiastic” toward him?  And even then refuse to do so?

The following two paragraphs provide an answer why our future military officers feel as they do:

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

I would argue that what Chris Matthews statement about West Point being an “enemy camp” for Obama means is that Barack Obama is openly hostile to the United States military and everything it stands for.  Barack Obama has said he wants to “fundamentally transform America,” and has vowed to “remake America.”  You can understand why people who love our countries’ traditions wouldn’t appreciate a man who hates those very same traditions.  These young future officers did not sign up to fight and die for Obama’s “remade” America.  They love the America of their forefathers, rather than the America of Barack Hussein’s Marxist visions.

It’s not just the U.S. Army that has quiet contempt for Barack Obama.  The U.S. Marines don’t care much for him either, judging by the “polite” response they gave him versus the wild cheering for their last real commander-in-chief:

When the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us are quietly disgusted by their commander-in-chief, you should seriously contemplate these valiant warriors’ judgment.

Why Fox News Haters Can ‘Teabag’ Themselves

May 11, 2009

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.

We now can confirm that Walter Cronkite was a tin-foil hat wearing liberal throughout his broadcast career, but does anybody seriously consider him using crude sexual innuendo to attack Republicans or share in the rabid views of hate-spewing guests?  At some point, the mainstream media went from doctrinaire liberal elitism to full rabid hatred.

I’ve written about the fact that study after study has demonstrated that the media is dominated by liberalism.  I’ve written about this in numerous articles, but one paragraph from a previous article should suffice to demonstrate that fact:

The media has been so blatantly biased throughout its election coverage that it is completely accurate to say that we are now in a propaganda state.  There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased.  Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain.  The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats and their ideology.  Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded democracy, because no free society can survive such a climate of propaganda.

The bias, the ideology masquerading as news, the dishonesty and corruption of the media, is rampant.  And more and more Americans simply no longer trust them.

In spite of all this, we are supposed to believe that it is Fox News – and not the likes of CNN and MSNBC – which is “biased.”

So let us go to Johnny Dollar’s Place in examining “Fox Haters Week in Review“:

Fox Haters Week in Review

Green footballs, fallacious flea bags, and fact-check follies. Slanders, stupidity, and skulduggery are on display in the latest edition of Fox Haters Week in Review.

Fact-Check Follies
Sometimes it seems the primary qualification for attacking Fox News Channel is not knowing what you’re talking about. That notion was reinforced this week with the decision by Fox broadcast (the American Idol channel) not to carry the latest press conference from President Obama. Leave it to the haters to erupt in a fit of gallopping ignorance. One site bellowed:

Fox News Decides Not to Carry Presidential Press Conference…What do you think? Should a national news station carry every president’s news conference?

Apparently at some point they got a clue, and rewrote the piece (though that non-sequitur question remains). But other sites remain clueless, four days after FNC covered the presser in its entirety:

Apparently Fox News is fine with Censorship…Rupert has decided that the Fox audience doesn’t need to actually hear and see the POTUS talk to *them* and the *press.* They’ll get the Cliff’s Notes from Hannity, O’Reilly, and Beck.

The confusion grows deeper here. Those guys are on the news channel. How would anyone watching Fox broadcast get any “notes” at all from them? The next line is classic:

Way to encourage critical thinking skills, Fox.

Meanwhile another critical thinker has a different spin on it:

Fox News Won’t Be Airing Obama’s Primetime Address…The network states they will impose a graphic at the bottom of the screen telling viewers where they can watch the Address. Brilliant… send people to the competition. That always increases earnings, right?

The graphic directed viewers to FNC and Fox Business Network.

Another subject, but the same command of the facts:

Why did Fox News not cover the live town hall speech that President Obama gave at Arnold, MO’s town hall for his 100th day in office? Now Fox being the un-biast [sic] news channel that they are, I assumed they would have played at least 5 minutes of the speech on live national television.

Sorry pal, all of the cable news channels carried portions of the event, including FNC. But don’t take our word for it, see for yourself.

For frothing at the mouth over stuff that isn’t true, this is hard to top:

Fox News Disrespect Against President Obama Continues. Fox News by no means should be classified as a news channel. Fox News has been the single, most disrespectful alliance against President Obama since he’s been in office. It’s almost shocking to see a so-called news channel disrespect the President of the United States on a daily basis and actually be allowed to function as a “news” channel in the United States of America. From Bill O’Reily to Sean Hannity, these disrespectful, bitter, “true” Americans simply refuse to refer to President Obama as President Obama by constantly dropping off the president in front of his name….

  • BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Impact” segment tonight, two topics: Is President Obama promoting a nanny state?… But President Obama today on television… But the trend now with President Obama is, we’ll do it for you….
  • GLENN BECK, HOST: What was President Obama’s carbon footprint on Earth Day?
  • O’REILLY: If President Obama were to award the contracts for cap-and-trade…

  • BECK: Some people were a little upset yesterday seeing President Obama
  • BECK: He gave President Obama several unique and priceless historical gifts…Brown gave President Obama a couple of things….In exchange, President Obama gave Prime Minister Brown…it’s remarkable to me that President Obama just kind of like went to the video store…
  • SEAN HANNITY, HOST: we are tracking President Obama’s campaign promises….
  • HANNITY: It is day number 79 of President Obama’s administration…and President Obama isn’t making it any better…

We could go on, but you get the point.

Stop the Paul Bearers!
It seems like some at the right end of the spectrum are a bit uncomfortable with certain points of view. One of the most prominent red blogs, Little Green Footballs, seems to be objecting to FNC because they permit libertarians (gasp!) to be heard. The footballers took early aim at Glenn Beck, rushing to recycle a video popularized by the Huffington Post (and we know how carefully they screen their videos). It documented a 912 meeting with some intemperate language about burning books. When evidence surfaced that the speaker in question may not have been what she seemed, the footballers did not include it their article. Just this weekend they took another shot at Mr Beck, because of the dozens of people in the audience for his Friday special, “several” were Ron Paul supporters. Oh no, how dare Fox News permit even a handful of the gallery to hold such verboten views!

But if you want to knock Fox, at least do so without using doctored links. LGF is outraged because:

Fox News Pimping Judge Andrew Napolitano, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Alex Jones…Judge Andrew Napolitano, who uses his Fox News online show “Freedom Watch” to promote racists and nutjobs like Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, and Alex Jones, is now being pimped on the official Fox News video page.

Before we get to the trickery used here, a disclaimer. We have no love for Alex Jones, whose 9/11 conspiracies are legend. On the other hand, 9/11 never comes up in this discussion. We assume the Judge invited Jones on his webcast because Jones had the Judge on his. Which would be a good thing: exposing the Jones audience to a voice of sanity. But Jones aside, why does it seem to bother the footballers so much that one particular member of Congress gets interviewed? Is Ron Paul suddenly off limits? Have the footballers blasted other channels for all their Paul interviews? Are there other lawmakers that news organizations should shun? Just which opinions are impermissible? Perhaps they will publish a list. Would Peter Schiff (economist who predicted the current downturn) and TV’s Andy Levy also be on that list, since they also appeared on this webcast?

Back to the slippery sleight-of-hand used to create a phony issue. LGF claims FNC was “pimping” the show on its “official video page”. Take a look at the link LGF offered as proof:

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH
&referralObject=4728294&referralPlaylistId=
62f160c4ad50103a40c63f3bef45da415ef95101

Now compare that with the actual link to the foxnews video page:

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html

Why is the first one so much longer? It’s all that extra code in there (like “Playlist Id”) that takes you not to the video front page but rather to a specific video–in this case, the one LGF is complaining about. In other words, the footballers used a link that intentionally highlighted that video to make it look like Fox was “pimping” it, when in fact the default fox news video page always highlights the last-uploaded video (unless you ask it to do something else). This bit of trickery isn’t difficult to do, by the way; you just play a video and click on the ‘share’ button to get the direct link. We could link to this, or this, and claim–aha!–Fox News is “pimping” these stories. But we wouldn’t do that, because we tell the truth about Fox.

Ellen’s Embarrassments
Can there be anything more humiliating than getting up on a high horse and pompously telling someone they’re wrong–only to find out they weren’t wrong at all? It happens so often with Fox haters that we coined a word for it: the Incorrection. And this week’s master is none other than Ellen “Queen Bee” Brodsky, doyenne of the newshounds. She seems to share with the footballers a desire to discredit Glenn Beck at any cost, even if it means making idiotic and patently false claims:

Beck said, “Something is wrong when we don’t take proper precautions on the border when there’s a fear of a swine flu pandemic.” In other words, viewers should worry that we’ll be overrun with contagious Mexicans. Never mind that more than half the cases in the U.S. to date come from non-border states and the state with the most number of cases, New York, is the one furthest from the border.

Say what? Distance from the border may have been a valid argument in the days of the Conestoga wagons, but we have these things called trains, planes, and automobiles now, and it really doesn’t matter how far you go, or where you end up. The outbreak in New York began at a school where students had recently returned from Mexico. Ellen had further insights to impart:

Beck’s voice rose with hammy outrage as he lied to inflame emotion against the Obama administration – by accusing them of “choosing to panic New Yorkers” with the low-flying plane “photo op” that scared so many. It was undoubtedly a bone-headed, insensitive mistake. But there’s no evidence that the Obama administration chose to panic New Yorkers. Why say such a thing unless you’re trying to scare your viewers again…

Ms Brodsky rushes to call Beck a liar, but she offers zero documentation other than her say so; we prefer a more reliable authority:

Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and a 747 from the presidential fleet to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public.

So who lied: Mr Beck or Ms Brodsky?

We have one more Ellen embarrassment to detail, starting with a trademark hound HeadLie:

Arlen Specter Switches Parties, Fox Immediately Brands Him As A Traitor

Ms Brodsky has no quote of “Fox” branding Specter a “traitor”, only asking commenters if the switch makes him one:

Fox Nation “asks,” “Is He Benedict Arlen?” Foxnews.com similarly suggested he’s a traitor, with a home page headline saying Specter “turns back on GOP” and that he “jump(ed) Republican ship.” The actual article is less inflammatory but paints Specter’s decision as one designed to get him re-elected. That’s probably accurate but they somehow omitted Specter’s criticisms of the GOP, that it moved to the far right away from the Reagan Big Tent and that 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats last year.

The duplicity here is extraordinary. The “article” that “paints Specter’s decision” in a way that’s “probably” true but Ellen doesn’t like? It wasn’t written by Fox News. It’s Specter’s own words: the Senator’s official statement on why he made the switch. Ellen insists that it “somehow omitted Specter’s criticisms of the GOP”. It did? Follow the link yourself and read the full article. You’ll find this, precisely what Ms Brodsky says isn’t there:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

If you wonder how Fox haters can lie with impunity and not get called on it, consider the fact that this particular Ellen entry has accumulated over 90 comments. Not one bothered to follow the links to see what the article really said–they just took the word of a discredited deceiver. Or maybe they did do their homework and tried to stand up for the truth, but their comments were made to disappear in the time-honored fashion of the flea bag fabulists.

The final paragraph captures the zeitgeist of the age well: ignorant people unquestioningly buying in to an era of propaganda.

The one thing Fox News haters can legitimately hate: Fox News is absolutely murdering their cable news competition in every single time slot.  Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity routinely have more viewers than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN combined. Fox News Haters can hate Fox for that.

Liberal NBC News Networks Are “the Lohans”

September 6, 2008

Bill O’Reilly has long-said that NBC News is the most liberal and corrupt news organization in the country, and that its spin-off MSNBC is a disgrace.

Recent evidence proved that he knew what he was talking about.

An exchange between “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart and NBC anchor Brian Williams – and the underlying Richter-scale level on-air meltdowns the network has suffered – makes for hilarious yet revealing insights into the liberal media:

Brian Williams appeared on Tuesday night’s “The Daily Show” from Minnesota, where Jon Stewart asked him about the recent infighting taking place on MSNBC.

“Let me ask you this,” Stewart said. “You’re NBC, you’re the top dog, you’re the anchor, and then they send you over to MSNBC, and literally they’re beating each other up. Matthews is yelling at Olberamnn, Scarborough is yelling at David Shuster, you have to apparently ask some of the women there if they would check a box if they like you…is there no control? Is it Lord of the Flies?”

When Williams tried the, “I think every family has a dynamic all its own” defense, Stewart shot back: “But does MSNBC have to be the Lohans?”

A further comment from the Huffington Post claims:

Word on the blogs has it that the awkward edit toward the end of the segment occurred to eliminate this exchange:

Brian Williams: You don’t understand the pressure.
Jon Stewart: You’ve got to lie. I’ve just got to tell the truth.

So we’ve got the crazy psycho liberal thing, and we’ve got the biased lying ideologue thing going on in the same Jon Stewart riff.

Not a bad days’ work, Jon.

In ___ We Trust?

August 22, 2008

MSNBC has a poll: “Should the motto “In God We Trust” be removed from U.S. currency?
Yes. It’s a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

As of my visit, there were 6594785 responses.

Obviously, the “No” response has a commanding lead. But the real story might be just how many secular humanists have voiced their approval in eradicating God – or any expression of trust in Him – from our currency.

It doesn’t really matter what people think, as a bottom line. The courts have largely taken such matters out of their hands.

Thomas Jefferson, whom liberals falsely think would have been on their side, has said of the Supreme Court:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of
the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

(more…)

Hillary’s Pennsylvania Win Has Media Snivelling

April 23, 2008

Last night’s Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is worth commenting on. A 10-point margin of victory against a candidate who spent three times more in the state is obviously significant.

Why can’t Barack Obama – the candidate of sweeping hope and change – close Hillary Clinton out? It’s a question being taken up by more and more pundits. Obama threw the kitchen sink at Clinton – spending-wise – and ended up with a double-digit loss in a major state. The 200,000 vote margin in Pennsylvania also gives Hillary Clinton a legitimate claim to boast that she has obtained the nationwide popular vote.

Back in 2000, the Democrats mantra was “Every vote should count!” But here we are completely excluding the votes in Florida and Michigan? It’s just part of the self-serving pretzel-logic of the Democratic Party.

Obama has now lost 7 of the 10 biggest states in the country, including all 4 of the major battleground states that could go either Red or Blue in November.

As it stands, there is no no way either candidate can win enough delegates to take the nomination outright. Whoever wins will win because the super delegates hand the election to one or the other. In this race, neither candidate genuinely has the right to claim that the super delegates “owe” their vote to one or the other, precisely because the super delegates aren’t beholden to any specific “rule” that tells them how to vote one way or the other.

The conventional wisdom holds that the super delegates will crown the candidate that has the best chance of winning in November. But who is that? Obama has won twice as many states. But many of those states were awarded by caucuses – a byzantine process very nearly as un-democratic as the super delegate rule itself. Hillary Clinton has won more large states. She won Florida, won California, won Texas, won Ohio, won Pennsylvania. And she has certainly had the recent momentum in the last few major states – but how much of that recent momentum has been her own, and how much was handed to her by Obama’s stumbles? Finally, both candidates are nailing down their respective bases, but both would need to hold on to the other’s base in November in order to have any chance of winning the general election.

And it appears to me, at least, that if either candidate is “snubbed” by the super delegates, well, to coin a movie title, “There Will Be Blood.”

My own sense is that the super delegates will award the nomination to Barack Obama simply because elite liberals, the ideological “Moveon.org”-types, and blacks would raise more of a tantrum than the working-class whites, the seniors, and the women in Hillary’s camp.

In other words, the barometer will ultimately be “PC,” rather than the calculus of “electibility,” that determines the nominee. If I am correct in my assesment, this bodes ill for Democrats: because PC guarantees that the side that gets snubbed will have hard feelings, just as it always has against everyone else on whom it’s been played. There will be lifelong Democrats who will vote for McCain, or simply not vote at all, mark my words.

At times, MSNBC’s Hardball coverage of the election revealed some genuine bitterness over Clinton’s victory.

Keith Olbermann quoted Donna Brazile as saying, There is a group around Senator Clinton that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don’t care about the party. It scares me, and that’s what scares a lot of superdelegates.

Chris Matthews – on the very same night that Hillary Clinton wins a 10 point victory in a major state – analogizes the Hillary Clinton campaign to the Titanic, and points out that “The iceberg’s name is Barack Obama.”

Tom Brokaw all but wrote Hillary’s campaign obituary, saying she’d go as far as she could before she finally hit the wall.

There was one exchange that I found especially revealing in its “journalistic implications”:

Christ Matthews: It’s not just the Clinton forces continue to change the score sheet and the scoreboard itself, they reserve the right to do it again and again and again.

Tim Russert: Yes. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Terry McAuliffe have one thing they want: Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. And they’ll use any path that’s available to get there….That’s what it is all about — those are the rules according to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliffe.

Chris Matthews: Mulligan after mulligan after mulligan.

Keith Olbermann: And yes, it really is not just a moving goalpost but the proverbial movable feast of goalposts. You put it anywhere you want. And remember – and the other thing about is, as much as we might look at it with astonishment or you know, amazement maybe that especially in that — that core group of women supporters, that group we mentioned earlier, that is so adherent to Hillary Clinton, this particular action of moving the goalpost, the actual act of redefining the game as it goes along, is perceived as one of her greatest strengths.

Republicans, of course, could have told everyone 16 years ago that the Clintons didn’t care about anybody but the Clintons; that they would deceive, distort, mischaracterize, and use deceptive media tactics that could have come right from the mafia in order to win. But the liberals who loved Clintonian tactics when they were successfully employed against Republicans are suddenly finding that they have no stomach whatever for them when they are employed against someone they like.

Keith Olbermann underscored the media’s fidgeting over the prospect of Democrats mud-wrestling themselves right out of viability, saying, “Yes, I really like the image of superdelegates moving quickly, because, so far, they have been glacier-like, in any respect, in any direction.” Most any other time, of course, journalists love the idea of dirty laundry being constantly hung out for them to sniff. Most of the time, they wouldn’t want anybody to step in and end this endless twisting in the wind. But this fight is clearly different for them.

One writer pointed out on 24 March 2008, “And prominent pundits are saying so. Last Friday, just about an hour after the Richardson endorsement event, two top writers for the Politico, an influential website, posted a news article-cum-editorial arguing, accurately, that Clinton has almost no numerical case to make. Another uber-pundit and conventional-wisdom shaper, this one at Time, posted 14 reasons why Clinton should consider withdrawing. And so it was that the week that began with Obama on the ropes ended with Clinton being urged out of the ring.”

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek offered the objective title, “Hillary Should Get Out Now.”

I particularly like the New York Times editorial for 23 April 2008, “The Low Road to Victory.” Laura Ingraham – rightly – points out that these New York Times people couldn’t get enough dirty laundry out of the Catholic Church, that the continued to demand one mea culpa after another. And they certainly didn’t mind throwing a clearly dirty mud ball at John McCain by all but accusing him of a sexual affair in addition to other illegitimate behavior with a female lobbyist. But now they don’t have the stomach for any more negative news to damage Democratic candidates. They are clearly sorry they endorsed Clinton at this point. They didn’t know who the liberal darling would turn out to be.

The editorial begins, “The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.”

Another inconclusive result?” A 10 point victory? These people have clearly become unhinged over the Democratic campaign. And they couldn’t show their bias much more nakedly.

And it ends: “It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.”

In other words, PLEASE, OH PLEASE PLEASE, WON’T SOMEBODY STOP THIS UNDERMINING OF OUR BELOVED DEMOCRATS? WE OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS JUST CAN’T STAND IT ANYMORE!”

But I close with the extremely relevant question of MSNBC anchor, Joe Scarborough, who said on last night’s Hardball: “Hey, Harold [Ford], let’s pretend we’re in the Democratic cloakroom. We are two uncommitted superdelegates and we just found out Barack Obama lost Pennsylvania. We are talking and I say to you hey, man, I’m concerned about this guy. He’s been in Pennsylvania for seven weeks. He has had $9 million, he’s crushed Hillary Clinton as far as the ad wars go. But he can’t close the deal. He can win now, and we are in a Democratic cloakroom, I would then say those Republican bastards are going to kill him in the fall. What do we do?

Indeed.