The effects of the colluding, corruption and manipulation of the news as a consequence of the Journolist portal are inestimable on multiple levels but clearly will be long lasting. For many, it reinforces the irrelevancy of the mainstream media which is a de facto propaganda arm for liberals and the Democratic Party.
Though we presented a variety of information on this Journolist scandal on July 23rd, the following editorial by Jonah Goldberg adds a different perspective.
Open Conspiracy is No Longer Merely Ajar
Jonah Goldberg
The Journolist has started to leak like an overripe diaper.
Just in case you've been living in a cave, or if you only get your news from MSNBC, here's the story. A young blogger, Ezra Klein, formerly of the avowedly left-wing American Prospect and now with the avowedly mainstream Washington Post, founded the e-mail listserv "Journolist" for like-minded liberals to hash out and develop ideas. Some 400 people joined the by-invitation-only group.
Most, it seems, were in the media, but many hailed from academia, think tanks and the world of forthright liberal activism generally. They spoke freely about their political and personal biases, including their hatred of Fox and Rush Limbaugh, and their utter loyalty to the progressive cause and Democratic success.
That off-the-record intellectual bacchanalia has started to haunt the participants like an inexplicable rash after a wild party during fleet week.
Last month, David Weigel, a young Washington Post blogger hired to report on conservative politics, ostensibly from a sympathetic perspective, left the post thanks to his damning statements on Journolist (conservatives are racists, Rush Limbaugh should die, etc.).
Now the diaper is coming off entirely. Perhaps stretching the diaper metaphor too far, what's inside Journolist may stink, but it's no surprise that it does. Journolist e-mails obtained by The Daily Caller reveal what anybody with two neurons to rub together already knew: Professional liberals don't like Republicans and do like Democrats. They can be awfully smug and condescending in their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. They tend to ascribe evil motives to their political opponents -- sometimes even when they know it's unfair. One obscure blogger insisted that liberals should arbitrarily demonize a conservative journalist as a racist to scare conservatives away from covering stories that might hurt Obama.
Oh, and -- surprise! -- it turns out that the "O" in Journolist stands for "Obama."
In 2008, participants shared talking points about how to shape coverage to help Obama. They tried to paint any negative coverage of Obama's racist and hateful pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as out of bounds. Journalists at such "objective" news organizations as Newsweek, Bloomberg, Time and The Economist joined conversations with open partisans about the best way to criticize Sarah Palin.
Like an Amish community raising a barn, members of the progressive community got together to hammer out talking points. Amidst a discussion of Palin, Chris Hayes, a writer for the Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get." Time's Joe Klein admitted to his fellow Journolisters that he'd collected the listserv's bric-a-brac and fashioned it into a brickbat aimed at Palin.
Many conservatives think Journolist is the smoking gun that proves not just liberal media bias (already well-established) but something far more elusive as well: the Sasquatch known as the Liberal Media Conspiracy.
I'm not so sure. In the 1930s, The New York Times deliberately whitewashed Stalin's murders. In 1964, CBS reported that Barry Goldwater was tied up with German Nazis. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers and found that journalists identified themselves as liberal by a factor of 3 to 1. Their actual views on issues were far more liberal than even that would suggest. Just for the record, Ezra Klein was born in 1984.
In other words, Journolist is a symptom, not the disease. And the disease is not a secret conspiracy but something more like the "Open Conspiracy" H.G. Wells fantasized about, where the smartest, best people at every institution make their progressive vision for the world their top priority.
As James DeLong, a fellow at the Digital Society, correctly noted on the Enterprise Blog, "The real problem with JournoList is that much of it consisted of exchanges among people who worked for institutions about how to best hijack their employers for the cause of Progressivism."
For a liberal activist that's forgivable, I guess. But academics? Reporters? Editors? Even liberal opinion writers aren't supposed to "coordinate" their messages with the mothership.
The conservative movement at least admits it is a movement (even though conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1 in this country).
Establishment liberalism, not just in the press but also in the White House, academia and Hollywood, holds power by refusing to make the same concession. "This isn't about ideology. ... We just call them like we see them. ... We don't have an agenda."
The open conspiracy that perpetuates that lie is far more pernicious than any chat room.
If you can stomach the elitist arrogance and condescension exuding in the video below, you will see liberal news media members in action on CNN discussing the "desecration" of the internet caused by bloggers. Not by pornography, hate sites or terrorist created ones. No, blogs that express points of view that are at odds with the far-left, out of touch news media. Just people exercising their rights of free speech, dissemination of information and opinions.
As we discovered with the Journolist scandal, these media members want to completely control the transmission and availability of information ... with a very liberal/progressive angle.
An online forum called Journolist has been used by hundreds of liberal journalists to collude in “news” presentation in order to advance the liberal agenda. More specifically and egregiously, it was a communications portal that served to facilitate a coordinated approach in getting Obama elected by controlling the news. This involved discussing what stories to cover and with what angle and what stories to suppress.
The prime victim of their journalistic malfeasance was Sarah Palin whom they attacked with a vengeance. Conversely, they intentionally quashed stories on Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s associations with his racist church and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
The Daily Caller uncovered some of the media that were involved including Time, Politico, The Huffington Post, The Baltimore Sun, Salon, Guardian, the Washington Independent and the New Republic and big individual names such as Joe Klein of the Times.
Media bias is an understatement of the malfeasance that was perpetrated here.
The following three articles further elucidate and scrutinize this abject journalistic malpractice:
The following is just one more inexcusable example of the far-left biased news media and its double standards in reporting/not reporting news. It is also why they are becoming more irrelevant as Americans have realized that their reportage is extremely biased and incomplete - so they seek it from Fox News, talk radio and the internet.
We can only imagine the immense outrage and headlines if the reverse occurred instead and Jerry Brown was the one being called a Nazi.
Jerry Brown Calls Meg Whitman a Nazi, Media Mostly Mum
By Noel Sheppard 06/12/2010
California's Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown on Tuesday called his Republican rival Meg Whitman a Nazi.
You probably didn't hear about this because America's media largely ignored it.
By contrast, the press had a field day when Republican senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina made a comment about Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) hair that was picked up by an open microphone Tuesday evening.
Why the double standard?
Consider your answer as you read what Brown told KCBS radio's Doug Sovern:
Brown boasted about his legendary frugality. "I've only spent $200,000 so far. I have 20 million in the bank. I'm saving up for her." It's true - his stay-on-the-sidelines, bare-bones primary run cost him almost nothing, at least in California political terms. But he also fretted about the impact of all those eBay dollars in Whitman's very deep pockets. "You know, by the time she's done with me, two months from now, I'll be a child-molesting..." He let the line trail off. "She'll have people believing whatever she wants about me." Then he went off on a riff I didn't expect.
"It's like Goebbels," referring to Hitler's notorious Minister of Propaganda. "Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That's her ambition, the first woman president. That's what this is all about."
Sovern followed this up Thursday:
The campaign of Meg Whitman has issued the following statement in response to the comments made by Jerry Brown, quoted in my blog posting "Run Jerry Run."
"Just last week, Governor Brown promised he wasn't going to engage in mudslinging, but now he is comparing Meg Whitman to Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. Jerry Brown's statements comparing our campaign to a propagator of the Holocaust is deeply offensive and entirely unacceptable."
Jerry Brown's campaign spokesman, Sterling Clifford, confirms to the Associated Press that the conversation took place, describing it as "a discussion after a chance meeting while they were exercising. I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of it, but I also don't want to dispute the accuracy of it. It was jogging talk taken out of context." He says Brown was not comparing the Whitman campaign to Nazis.
UPDATE: Friday afternoon, Jerry Brown issued the following statement: "I regret making the comments. They were taken out of context."
Pretty serious stuff happening in America's most-populated state, wouldn't you agree?
Yet our media weren't very interested.
Although Politico reported this matter late Thursday evening, as did the Associated Press shortly after, the rest of our supposedly impartial press almost completed ignored Brown's disgusting remarks.
According to Google news and LexisNexis searches, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and NBC didn't file one report on this subject through Friday evening.
NOT ONE!
I can also find no newspaper reports outside of California.
Zero, nada, zilch!
Bucking the trend was Fox News during Friday's "Special Report" and CNN's Jack Cafferty giving it a mention on the same day's "Situation Room."
By contrast, when Fiorina was caught on an open microphone saying that Boxer's hair was "so yesterday," the media had a field day.
CNN has already done eleven reports on this vital matter impacting our nation. MSNBC's done three.
On the broadcast networks, NBC did three reports, ABC did two, and CBS did one. Those actually included a segment on ABC's "World News with Diane Sawyer"
As for newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, and the Houston chronicle all found Fiorina saying Boxer's hair was "so yesterday" newsworthy.
I guess our media must think a Republican commenting about a rival's hair is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than a Democrat calling a political opponent a Nazi.
There are reasons that Obama is secretive: He has something to hide.
Why hasn’t he released personal records such as his transcripts from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard? There are rumors and we speculate that he is suppressing crucial information that may be devastating to him.
Even issues about his birth certificate or multiple social security numbers have not been explained. They must be thoroughly and summarily investigated.
The lack of press conferences is also a very serious problem. Not only does he have the almost unwavering support of the media irrespective of what he does, but he essentially dictates the issues de jour and information flow which is extremely dangerous. This is rapidly approaching an authoritarian model and the sycophantic press is completely fooled.
America’s future depends on aggressively addressing these problems expeditiously.
Obama Hides from Press: No Conference Since July
Newsmax Staff May 20, 2010
Observers couldn’t help but notice the irony: President Barack Obama on Monday signed the Press Freedom Act, then refused to take any questions from members of the press.
In a broader sense, the event was another demonstration of Obama’s standoffish relationship with the news media — despite his campaign vow of a “transparent” administration.
Obama has not fielded questions at a full-blown press conference since way back on July 22, 2009.
President George H.W. Bush had nearly three press conferences a month. Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson convened an average of about two a month, Ronald Reagan had less than one press conference every two months, and Richard Nixon averaged one every seven weeks.
Obama lags behind both Nixon and Reagan: He called five press conferences during his first six months in office, and none in the 10 months that followed, the Huffington Post reported.
As for less formal short exchanges with reporters, Obama has had 47, compared with 147 for George W. Bush in his first year and 252 for Clinton, according to figures compiled by professor Martha Joynt Kumar of Towson University in Towson, Md.
Reporters were on hand in the Oval Office when Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, which expands the State Department’s annual human rights reports to include a description of press freedoms in each country.
The bill is named after the Jewish Wall Street Journal reporter terrorists beheaded in February 2002.
After Obama signed the bill, Chip Reid of CBS News asked the president if he still has confidence in BP in the wake of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama ignored the question. Reid then said: “In the interest of press freedom, would you take a couple questions on BP?”
Reid reported: “He told me I was free to ask questions. Someone else shouted, ‘Will you answer them?’ He said he’s not holding a press conference today as we were escorted out the door.”
There have been other recent instances of Obama’s reluctance to speak with the press:
• On May 4, Obama refused to field any questions from reporters in the Rose Garden after delivering an angry statement regarding the oil spill.
• On May 12, Obama had a joint “press conference” with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, but reporters were allowed to ask only four questions — two each for the U.S. and foreign press corps. Fox News reported that, “for the White House press corps, it might seem more of a tease than a meaty Q&A.”
• On Wednesday, Obama held a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon but said there was time for only one question from the White House press corps and one from foreign reporters.
“And in what I suspect was a White House effort to assure that the questioning was limited to immigration and other issues of U.S.-Mexico concern, he called on the Univision reporter from the U.S. side,” CBS’ Reid noted.
“So if his goal was to avoid answering any tough questions about yesterday’s elections, or the oil spill, or financial regulation, or Iran, or Afghanistan — he succeeded.”
Then as Obama and Calderon began to walk back to the Oval Office, Reid said he shouted: “Do you have any plans for a REAL press conference?” Obama did not respond.
Obama’s orchestration of the so-called “press conferences” can be seen as one element of the administration’s efforts to manipulate the press. The White House refused to grant interviews to Fox News and tried to limit its access because the network often criticized the administration. Obama also has attacked conservative talk radio.
Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post reported that, when ABC, NBC, and CBS balked at airing Obama’s July 2009 news conference in prime time, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called the heads of the parent companies of all three networks and pressured them to air the event.
“There’s a reason Emanuel went over the heads of the programming execs: The programming execs recognize that each time Obama rips out the heart of a weekday primetime lineup, he costs them revenue,” Ben Shapiro observed at townhall.com.
“The White House has to use the covert threat of a cutoff in White House access for networks that refuse to play ball. The alphabet networks all know that the Obama White House has largely frozen Fox’s access to administration officials. They know that Obama grants his friends access while cutting off his enemies. This endangers the independence of the press in a catastrophic way . . .
“With Obama openly pressuring the networks to accede to its requests or face a reportorial cutoff, we are witnessing the hijacking of the First Amendment in toto.”
Thanks to the White House’s manipulation of the news media, Obama has not had to answer hard questions about a wide range of recent issues.
But the press should not have been surprised by Obama’s secretiveness.
During the campaign, he refused or declined to release many personal documents that most candidates do automatically. Such papers included his records as an Illinois state legislator and his transcripts from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Universities.
Obama promised to be the most transparent president in history, but the promise appears “just words.”
Obama's fawning press is steadily losing its power and independence. While slobbering all over him, most don't realize that the last open press conference was July 2009. They are being treated like children which has often been evidenced by the content and tone of the responses of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
Obama orchestrates the impression of omnipresence which creates the perception that he is readily accessible and open. In reality, he is controlling the questions and debate leading to less useful information and greater ability to suppress negative news about him and his Administration.
He is insidiously becoming more omnipotent. This along with a controlled press translates into great danger for America.
Media Research Center analyzed the news media coverage of Arizona’s new immigration legislation (S.B. 1070) and as expected, it was very one sided. Very ones sided - to the tune of an outrageous 12 to 1 negative stories to positive ones. This should be a surprise to no one given its history of distorting the news, controlling the political angle and even suppressing ones that are not in accord with its far left ideological tilt.
Meanwhile, around 70% of Arizonans were in support of the bill . Nationally, support for the law far exceeded those who opposed it. These are in diametric opposition to the media’s positions.
And the news media wonders why their ratings have plummeted and they are suffering severely financially?
MRC Study: By 12 to 1, ABC, CBS, and NBC Rip Arizona's Immigration Law
Tim Graham 05/06/2010
When political scientists compare populism and elitism, they could certainly find a test case in the new Arizona law on immigration enforcement. While Rasmussen found 70 percent of Arizonans favored the crackdown on illegal aliens, and new national media polls found majority support as well, ABC, CBS, and NBC denounced the popular will as short-sighted and discriminatory.
From April 23 to May 3, the top three television networks offered viewers 50 stories and interview segments on their morning and evening news programs. The tone was strongly hostile to the law and promotional to the "growing storm" of left-wing protesters: 37 stories (or 74 percent) were negative, 10 were neutral, and only three were positive toward the Arizona law's passage -- 12 negative stories for every one that leaned positive. Stories were much kinder and sympathetic to illegal aliens than they were to police officers. Cops were potential abusers of power. Entering the country illegally was not an abuse of power. It was portrayed as an honorable step by the powerless.
The soundbite count was also slanted, with 92 quotes against the law and only 52 in favor. The pro-law numbers, however, included many soundbites of Arizona public officials defending themselves against liberal charges that they were racists or in favor of racial profiling.
Opponents of the law didn’t even have to speak English to be quoted sympathetically. In a May 3 CBS Evening News story, Katie Couric fretted "many" illegals "no longer feel welcome." Reporter Kelly Cobiella focused on the story of non-English-speaking Manuela Quintana, who decided to move to Colorado. Cobiella cued up the mother of ten to deny she was a criminal: "‘No,’ she says, ‘a criminal is someone who kills. I just want to work.’" Over video of the kids piling into an SUV, Cobiella concluded: "The family packed up before dawn today and headed north to Colorado. Manuela says she's lost hope in this state. She thinks she'll find it again in another."
By contrast, law enforcers were the bad guys. On Sunday morning, April 25 , ABC Good Morning America host Bill Weir chided Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a well-known enforcer of immigration law, "With this new law, will you ramp it up?...Will you grab people on street corners?"
While an earlier MRC special report found 44 percent of stories on the Tea Party movement suggested they were dangerous or fringy, none of the Arizona stories ever labeled protesters as "liberal" or on the left. They were often cast in neutral terms as "human rights activists" or "Latino activists."
While several stories forwarded outrage from the Mexican government over the Arizona law, none of the network stories mentioned the hypocrisy: Mexico has a stricter immigration-enforcement regime on its southern border than America does. As with sympathetic media coverage of large amnesty rallies in 2006 , none of the stories allowed anyone to suggest it was improper for illegal aliens to petition the government whose laws they're breaking or cancel out the votes of law-abiding citizens.
Civility wasn't necessary. While the harshest Tea Party activists were scorned by the networks for any suggestion President Obama was a "Nazi," on 11 occasions these same networks unquestioningly forwarded smears that proponents of the Arizona law were like Nazis or Civil War-era slaveholders. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell used these slurs from liberal comedians to demonstrate how Arizona was becoming a "laughingstock."
Violence was downplayed. Only one ABC story reported violence by the protesters (in a "mostly peaceful" protest), and only one CBS story mentioned vandalism (smearing refried-bean swastikas on the state capitol building). There were only two references to the murder of rancher Robert Krentz, and four to the shooting of a deputy in Pinal County, all four in larger celebrations of May Day marches.
Viewers would assume protesters were in the majority. ABC Saturday anchor David Muir touted May Day protests [0]on World News. "Angry backlash from coast to coast. Huge rallies across this country tonight against that new controversial immigration law."
Real poll numbers were not important. The networks were very reluctant to note that the Arizona law was popular: only five stories mentioned that the protesters were on the losing side of public opinion, where almost 90 percent of those polled by CBS consider illegal immigration a serious problem. It’s a stunning contrast, then, that 74 percent of the stories channel the view of a tiny minority. When pressed, Americans suggested to pollsters they're sympathetic toward the poverty of illegal aliens and concerned about race-based harassment. But the Big Three TV networks demonstrated no professional appetite for neutrality or civility on this conflict.
Instead of reporting all relevant stories in order to inform the public, the media have become fervent supporters and cheerleaders for Obama and the Democratic Party. Instead of their role as anticipated by the Founding Fathers to protect the people from the government and expose malfeasance, they countenance nearly all behavior by liberal politicians and function as a de facto wing of the Democratic Party – a P.R. one.
This collusion with and protection of the favored Obama and Democrats is corrupt, pernicious and threatens the survival of capitalism and democracy in this country. Unless more Americans wake up to this reality and strongly react, our future looks abysmal.
One-Sidedness Now Epidemic In Newsrooms
By Larry Elder 05/04/2010
Obama Double Standard Disease: an affliction that causes the media to ignore, rationalize or trivialize to defend, support and advance the tax-the-rich, spread-the-wealth, expand-the-government agenda of the president and his party.
This stands in stark contrast with media treatment of those who refuse to embrace the left-wing, America-bullies-world, dissenters-are-racist, pro-amnesty, gay-marriage-is-a-right, pro-Roe worldview.
ODSD is pandemic. Here are just a few cases.
When the economy recovered under President George W. Bush, the major media pronounced it a "jobless recovery." Now, despite unemployment stalled at 9.7% for several months, the same media call it a "surprising" or "unexpected" recovery.
Obama urged passage of an $800 billion "stimulus" package to prevent unemployment from reaching 8%. Post-stimulus passage, unemployment reached 10%. Consider how the media would have treated Bush had he given varying predictions about, and then varying accounts of, the number of jobs supposedly "created or saved" — a laughably unprovable yardstick.
Obama brazenly claims that under his policies, 95% of "working Americans" received a "tax cut." But nearly half of American workers pay absolutely nothing in income taxes. And after exemptions, tax credits and other deductions, the Obama tax cut even exceeded many workers' payroll taxes. How does a check, given to someone who pays little or no taxes, become a "tax cut"?
The National Rifle Association backed the 2000 presidential candidacy of George W. Bush. Describing the organization's relationship with Bush as "unbelievably friendly," an NRA official said a Bush victory would mean "a president where we work out of their office." The media pounced.
Typical of the coverage was a Washington Post article with this headline: "The NRA Brags That They'll Work Out Of President GW Bush's Oval Office." The Post pointed out that the NRA gave more than $500,000 in 1999 and 2000 to the GOP and expected to spend between $12 million and $15 million more on the 2000 election.
The Service Employees International Union, to elect Obama and other Democrats in 2008, spent $85 million. And in support of corporate bailouts, ObamaCare and higher taxes to "spread the wealth differently," SEIU President Andy Stern said, "Western Europe, as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality."
NBC's Matt Lauer did not ask Obama about the incredible willingness of the SEIU — his biggest financial supporter — to accept fewer jobs for "a lot more equality." CBS' Katie Couric did no story on the union's admission that higher taxes mean fewer jobs. No Washington Post editorial page asked how Stern's "trade-off" of fewer jobs squares with what Obama said about the importance of creating jobs: "That's the single most important thing we can do."
Acorn strongly endorsed Obama. The group's CEO, Bertha Lewis, gave a speech at the winter conference of the Young Democratic Socialists. She said: "Any group that says, 'I'm young, I'm Democratic and I'm a socialist,' is all right with me.
"You know, that's no light thing to do, to actually say, 'I'm a socialist.' ... Right now, we are living in a time which is going to dwarf the McCarthy era. It's going to dwarf the internments during World War II. We are right now in a time that is going to dwarf the era of Jim Crow and segregation.
Did the media ask Obama about Lewis' lunatic attack on those who disagree or about her open embrace of socialism? Did the media ask if Obama cared to comment on his promise, made during the campaign, to allow Acorn to "shape the agenda" of his presidency? Did they ask why Obama dismisses critics who call his agenda "socialism" — even as one of his biggest backers uses that very word?
ODSD ravages the country. It guarantees a pass is given to an administration that refuses to use the term "Islamofascism"; that offends traditional allies like Israel and new ones like Poland and the Czech Republic; that apparently accepts a nuclear Iran; that ignores government's role in the housing meltdown while blaming Wall Street "greed"; and that makes appeals to voters along racial lines.
It means the harmful consequences of the exploding welfare state get ignored, trivialized or disputed. It means "experts" hand-picked by the media overwhelmingly support the administration's income-equality agenda. It means that inconvenient news stories questioning "bigger and better" government or showing another side are downplayed, underreported or dismissed.
The Obama Double Standard Disease is a pre-existing illness — not covered, even under ObamaCare.
Americans by the millions vehemently oppose what our Federal government is doing to America. Obama and Congressional Democrats are essentially perpetrating a bloodless coup including abrogating many of our rights and freedoms while legislating numerous ways to take more of our hard earned money. Adding insult to injury, they also denigrate us at any opportunity possible.
Such arrogant elitism along with fiscal recklessness and a host of other issues has precipitated the genesis of the Tea Parties, increasingly outraged and vocal opposition by even average Americans who previously had no interest in politics.
Obama, the Democrats and the news media arrogantly portray those Americans who use their democratic First Amendment right to peacefully oppose their radical policies as fringe elements, racists, terrorists and many other derogatory epithets.
We must continue and even elevate the decibel level of discourse and disagreement.
One individual who is garnering increased recognition both in Florida where he is running for Congress and across the country is Lieutenant Colonel Allen West. He is a successful self-made man who is outstanding public speaker - motivating, intelligent, well informed and sincere.
And the antithesis of Obama’s robotic, cold and monotone ones.
Below are two videos of Lt. Col. West in Action. A third video captures the typical media race baiting but with the individual responding with the quintessential answer.
Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West speaking at the America Freedom Tour in Fort Lauderdale, Florida Oct. 21, 2009
Lieutenant Colonel Allen West West Palm Beach Tea Party Speech April 15, 2010
White NBC Reporter Confronts Black Man at Tea Party Rally
Such a question intending to degrade this individual and the Tea Parties is reprehensible and entirely typical of the far-left biased and corrupt news media.
They would never think to ask a white person a similar question if they largely surrounded by crowds of blacks - it would be considered to be racist. A clear double standard.
The anti-Conservative violence in Canada that preceded Ann Coulter’s intended but canceled speech is not an oddity – there or here. It seems that free speech whether by private citizens, politicians, writers or members of the media is only free if it espouses principles that comport with far-left ideology. Many conservative speakers and politicians have been attacked or had their speeches disrupted or terminated by groups of the radical left yet little or nothing was mentioned in the “main stream” media. In the majority of these situations, it appeared that such disruptive behavior was officially countenanced and not adequately or expeditiously neutralized.
When was the last time a liberal speaker at a University had their speech cancelled by out of control conservatives? Can’t think of any.
If one unkind word is spoken against a far-left adherent, the media is in an uncontrollable frenzy. The reverse does not occur in that the media and our present government actually encourage wanton vicious attacks against the right.
There are several important lessons in all of this. First, we must stand up and protect and fight for our rights. We must not allow our conservative points of view to be officially suppressed, threatened or punished whether it is by our government or a public institution. If we back down and don’t fight back, the consequences will be further erosion of our rights and freedoms. This is what has happened even in Canada and, of course, elsewhere. Let’s not let it happen here in America. There are already proposals to do just this such as the "Fairness Doctrine" and Obama's information czar who suggested controlling, correcting or deleting information on the internet that the government may deem "inaccurate" or "inappropriate".
We also must not be apologetic for our points of view or for non-violent means to express them. The left has done this very well. We need to be more verbally aggressive, loud and persistent.
Oh, Canada!
by Ann Coulter 03/24/2010
Since arriving in Canada I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my "bucket list").
Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.
Welcome to Canada!
The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me—widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me—in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
This marks the first time I've ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.
Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F----you, Francois."
While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole").
What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")
How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?
Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or—my suspicion—is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?
How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?
I'm sure Canada's Human Rights Commission will get to the bottom of Francois' strange warning to me, inasmuch as I will be filing a complaint with that august body, so I expect they will be reviewing every letter the university has sent to other speakers prior to their speeches to see if any of them were threatened with criminal prosecution.
Both writer Mark Steyn and editor Ezra Levant have been investigated by the Human Rights Commission for promoting hatred toward Muslims.
Levant's alleged crime was to reprint the cartoons of Mohammed originally published in a Danish newspaper, leading practitioners of the Religion of Peace to engage in murderous violence across the globe. Steyn's alleged crime was to publish an excerpt of his book, America Alone in Maclean's magazine, in which he jauntily described Muslims as "hot for jihad."
Both of them also flew jet airliners full of passengers into skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, resulting in thousands of deaths. No, wait—that was somebody else.
Curiously, however, there was no evidence that either the cartoons or the column did, in fact, incite hatred toward Muslims—nor was there the remotest possibility that they would.
By contrast, conservative speakers are regularly subjected to violent attacks on college campuses. Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and I have all been the targets of infamous campus attacks.
That's why the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (a sponsor of my Canada speeches) and the Young America's Foundation (a sponsor of many of my college speeches) don't send conservatives to college campuses without a bodyguard.
You'd have to be a real A-Houle not to anticipate that accusing a conservative of "promoting hatred" prior to her arrival on a college campus would in actuality—not in liberal fantasies of terrified Muslims cowering in terror of Mark Steyn readers—incite real-world violence toward the conservative.
The university itself acknowledged that Francois' letter was likely to provoke violence against me by demanding—long after my speech was scheduled, but immediately after Francois disseminated his letter—that my sponsors pony up more than $1,200 for extra security.
Also following Francois' letter, the Ottawa University Student Federation met for 7 1/2 hours to hammer out a series of resolutions denouncing me. The resolutions included:
"Whereas Ann Coulter is a hateful woman;
"Whereas she has made hateful comments against GLBTQ, Muslims, Jews and women;
"Whereas she violates an unwritten code of 'positive-space';
"Be it resolved that the SFUO express its disapproval of having Ann Coulter speak at the University of Ottawa."
At least the students didn't waste 7 1/2 hours on something silly, like their studies.
At the risk of violating anyone's positive space, what happened to Canada? How did the country that gave us Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Aykroyd and Catherine O'Hara suddenly become a bunch of whining crybabies?
After Tuesday night, the hatred incited by Francois' letter is no longer theoretical. The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals—screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm.
Sadly, I missed the book-burning because I never made it to the building.
But, reportedly, a Canadian crowd hasn't been this excited since they opened a new Tim Hortons. Local reporters couldn't make out what the crowd was chanting, but it was something about "Molson" and a "sled dog."
I've given more than 100 college speeches, and not once has one of my speeches been shut down at any point. Even the pie-throwing incident at the University of Arizona didn't break up the event. I said, "Get them!" and the college Republicans got them, and then I continued with my rambling, hate-filled diatribe—I mean, my speech.
So we've run this experiment more than 100 times.
Only one college speech was ever met with so much mob violence that the police were forced to cancel it: The one that was preceded by a letter from the university provost accusing me of hate speech.
(To add insult to injury, Francois didn't even plan to attend my speech because Tuesday is his bikini wax night.)
If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech—which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech—is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.
Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.
The news media and “our” liberal politicians see themselves as so elitist and righteous that they are resorting to attacking the American people who disagree with their policies. They disparage us as ignorant or benighted simply because we are exercising our Constitutional (and inherent) rights to oppose their far-left positions. Democracy has suddenly become an inconvenience for them as it has made passage of their various bills which would further restrict and control our rights and freedoms and plunder more of our hard earned wealth, nearly impossible.
This is also exactly why they are viciously attacking and denigrating the Tea Party Movement, a grass roots movement that represents an angry middle America. We are sick and tired of politicians imperiously foisting expensive and irresponsibly solutions on us, ransacking ever increasing amounts of the fruits of our labor, and destroying our economy, jobs and freedoms yet they live by another set of rules (including their gold plated healthcare plan), corruptly aggrandize themselves with our tax dollars and evince a general antipathy toward the people who are suppose to be their bosses.
This must stop. These despicable, arrogant, corrupt politicians must be voted out of office ASAP!
As for much of the news media, a boycott of their products and programs can be quite effective. In the following article alone, several of these are quoted from that excoriate Americans that we can place on this list:
Times Magazine, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker
To this we can add other far-left media like: MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS
Money, or the lack of it, talks. Let’s be quite loud on this issue!
Blame Americans First
Democrats lose patience with democracy.
By Matthew Continetti March 1, 2010
What’s the clearest sign the Obama agenda is in trouble? That’s easy: the string of jeremiads in the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets of fashionable opinion. Unable to tout the administration’s successes, and worried about Republican ascendancy, liberals have assigned responsibility for the mess they’re in neither to their program nor to their methods but to larger, structural faults in American politics and society. Beginning with you.
You aren’t too bright, for one thing. After all, opines Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek, the “biggest culprit” behind “our political paralysis” is the “childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.” You simply do not know what’s good for you. “On many issues these days,” writes the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein, “the American people are badly confused.” “The people may have spoken,” writes the New -Yorker’s James Surowiecki. “It’s just not clear that they’re making any sense.” In a blog post titled “Too Dumb to Thrive,” Time magazine’s Joe Klein cuts to the chase: “It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.”
The problem, as Weisberg sees it, is that America “simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, and other problems.” Note the myopia. For Weisberg, the only conceivable “action” on any issue is limited to the policy preferences of liberal Democrats. No other options spring to mind.
This is nonsense. Just because the public says the economy is important does not necessarily mean it has to support a stimulus measure that has added massively to the debt without much benefit. Just because the public is concerned with rising health care costs does not mean that it has to support a bill that could alter existing health care arrangements and increase costs in the long-term. Steven Pearlstein writes that Americans “want to do something about global warming.” No they don’t. Global warming came dead last in a recent Pew survey of public priorities.
The reason health care, cap and trade, and the other blocks of Obama’s New Foundation are unpopular isn’t public ignorance. It’s that the public sees them as counterproductive—and in many cases beside the point. The people’s representatives have responded to a variety of signals, from falling poll numbers, to town hall protests, to GOP victories in -Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Which is precisely how democracy is supposed to function.
And that’s the problem, says Kurt Andersen in New York magazine. “American democracy has gotten way too democratic.” The “thoughtful, educated, well-off, well-regarded gentlemen” who designed our Constitution “wanted a government run by an American elite like themselves.” But the “populist impulse” abroad in the land today has scared legislators into obeying the people’s demands.
It was not always thus. “In the old days,” Andersen laments, “the elite media really did control the national political discourse” and “presidents and congressional leaders could pretty well manage the policy conversations” without the public trying to butt in. But there’s no going back now; “maybe our republic’s constitutional operating system simply can’t scale up to deal satisfactorily with a heterogenous population of 310 million.”
This liberal uneasiness with democracy is not new. In 2003, in The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria made the case against too much public involvement in government. In 2008, in Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Thomas Friedman dreamed of America becoming “China for a day” so that he could impose his environmental agenda on a truculent populace. In a 2009 New York Times column, Friedman wrote that a dictatorship, “when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today,” has “great advantages” over democratic systems. In the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows writes that “whatever is wrong with today’s Communist leadership [in Beijing], it is widely seen as pulling the country nearer to its full potential rather than pushing it away.” Nevertheless, the Democrats probably aren’t going to run on “Communist China Does It Better.”
What makes the liberal jeremiads confusing is that they work at cross purposes. On one hand, you’ve got the attacks on the people’s intelligence and representative government. On the other, you’ve got the attacks on American institutions for not being representative enough. Which is it? Are the people the problem, or is their government? According to Fallows, it’s the latter: “Our government is old and broken and dysfunctional, and may even be beyond repair.”
The culprit is the Senate, which gives equal say to states with small populations and requires 60 votes to pass legislation. Fallows says these minority rights have turned the Senate “into a deep freeze and a dead weight.” “America is not yet lost,” Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times, “but the Senate is working on it.” In a Huffington Post blog, Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, writes that special interests are “using the filibuster to stop legislation that would benefit the little guy,” whether the little guy likes it or not.
You can make a persuasive argument that the filibuster has been deployed too frequently in recent years, especially when it has prevented presidents, Republican and Democrat, from staffing their administrations. Nevertheless, the Senate and the filibuster are there for good reasons: to defuse momentary passions that could have unintended and harmful consequences for the country.
The system is designed to ensure broad consensus before Congress enacts major reforms. Such consensus existed during the New Deal and Great Society. And there was consensus behind certain elements of Reagan’s and Bush’s and Clinton’s programs, as well. That was not the case when George W. Bush attempted to overhaul Social Security, however. The public agreed with Bush that there was a problem, but it did not like his solution. It has had the same reaction to Obama’s proposals.
The liberal program is in disarray because liberals have failed to establish general agreement. They have found that simple majorities do not automatically translate into programmatic success. And when they are met with public opposition and institutional resistance, they do what comes naturally. They blame Americans first.
Matthew Continetti is associate editor of The Weekly Standard and the author, most recently, of The Persecution of Sarah Palin (Sentinel Books).
As a consequence of Obama’s unwavering adherence to his radical and inimical ideologies, his glaring lack of previous executive experiences, and his prodigious and destructive arrogance and narcissism which preclude him from dispassionately assessing all angles of situations, he has set America to pay dearly this and in coming years. Exacerbating this situation further is his innate corruptness, scheming dishonesty and expressed profound disdain for America and most of its citizens (excluding the chosen minorities in specific and his constituency in general).
If you have any doubt about this, just consider all the mandated minority preferences in Obamacare and other legislation (which are racist and should be unconstitutional), wealth transfer beneficiaries, the dropping of charges against the New Black Panther Party regarding voter intimidation during the Presidential election, and even his racist tact in response to the Henry Gates – Cambridge police office incident, etc.
The following editorial enumerates some of the issues or incidents that Obama’s inept or ideologically blinded responses, attitude or inactions will ultimately lead to bad outcomes for America. Aside from a few exceptions, you won't see incisive assessments like this in the sycophantic liberal news media
Chickens Of '09 Coming Home To Roost In '10
By Victor Davis Hanson
Plenty of our chickens will be coming home to roost this year.
Take foreign relations. In 2009, the new administration assumed that George W. Bush was largely responsible for global tensions. As a remedy, we loudly reached out to our foes and those with whom we had uneasy relationships.
But so far these leaders — like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Russia's Vladimir Putin — have only interpreted Barack Obama's serial goodwill gestures as weaknesses to be exploited. They play the part of the pushy class bully, we the whiny nerd.
In the waning days of 2009, Iran has announced it has no intention of dismantling its nuclear facilities and ignored the latest Obama deadline to cease. There's no reason not to expect the theocracy to make significant strides in its nuclear program in 2010, while continuing without rebuke to beat and murder democratic dissidents in its streets.
Russia has announced plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons — and scoffed at our polite suggestions that it should pressure Iran to stop its nuclear development.
Venezuela brags of its own similar program to come — an act that could threaten all the neighboring democracies in the region.
The administration courted China on a much-heralded Asian tour. President Obama has even said he would be our first "Pacific president."
Unfortunately, China was not impressed. It declined our advice about reducing its carbon footprint and instead reminded Americans that we owe the Chinese people nearly $1 trillion. Expect much more of that hectoring in 2010 as our debt to China grows.
Consider also the threat of Islamic terrorism. In 2009, some in the Obama administration decided "war on terror" was too provocative a label for what might be better dubbed "overseas contingency operations." Apparently, they were thinking a kinder, gentler image would discourage terrorists.
Accordingly, the self-confessed architect of Sept. 11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was promised a civil trial in New York rather than a military tribunal normally accorded to out-of-uniform murderous terrorists. Expect a lot of soapbox speechmaking about America's sins during his testimony in 2010.
As part of our efforts to break with the Bush anti-terrorism past, President Obama also vowed he would close the facility at Guantanamo Bay by Jan. 22, 2010 — another deadline that won't be met.
But as 2009 ended, we were reminded that radical Islamic terrorists still want to kill us for who we are, and what we represent, rather than any particular thing we do.
Maj. Nidal Hasan, nursed on radical Islamic doctrine, murdered 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian at Ford Hood, Texas.
Five would-be terrorists with U.S. citizenship were arrested in Pakistan on their way to link up with Islamist militant groups. And Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was stopped in flight from Amsterdam before he could blow up an American passenger jet.
Note that all these recent terrorists were not poor, lived in the hospitable West — and cared little that the Obama administration has been critical of prior U.S. war-on-terror policies.
So, while we assured the world in 2009 that we wouldn't be overzealous in our various efforts to stop terrorists, the terrorists proved that they most certainly would be in theirs to kill us.
Meanwhile, at home we operated on the same naive assumptions. The Obama administration inherited a $500 billion deficit and expanded it threefold. Its planned mega-deficits may well grow the aggregate national debt over the next decade to over $20 trillion.
But the administration's 2009 calculations on how to service the growing red ink are based on continued cheap interest. Yet in 2010, it is likely we will see rising inflation, rising interest rates — and rising costs to the continual self-destructive borrowing.
We were given a financial break on energy prices in 2009. The worldwide recession sent oil down to about $50 a barrel.
But America did little during the year's reprieve to rush into production newly discovered domestic gas and oil fields, to tap existing finds in Alaska, or to license new nuclear plants.
By year's end, oil was creeping back up to $80. If the economic upswing continues, in 2010 it may near its old high of nearly $150 a barrel. Soon we will wish we had done something concrete in 2009 rather than offering more stale rhetoric about wind and solar power.
In other words, 2009 may seem to have ended relatively quietly. But in our foreign relations, in the war against terror, in our massive borrowing and in our energy policies, we created chickens that soon will come home to roost in 2010.
Shocking developments are beginning to occur regarding the liberal media’s apotheosis of Obama: some individuals are actually starting to scrutinize and question their messiah’s actions and policies. Amazing! Incredible! Some of his myrmidons are stepping out of line.
There may be a glimmer of hope for America yet.
Jack Cafferty Rips Obama on Failed Openness Pledge: 'Just Another Lie Told for Political Expediency'
The New York Times, the bastion of far-left liberalism and anti-Americanism whose slogan should be “only liberally biased news that we want to print”, has added to its reverse racist contributions with a new one: a gift section devoted exclusively to people of color. Whites can just move on to the next section.
Imagine the outrage if a conservative paper contained a similar section labeled specifically for Caucasians? There would be relentless outrage spewing largely from the black “community” (aka demagogues) with accusations of racism and privilege.
Such actions do not serve to advance harmony and assimilation but instead encourage more divisiveness and racism (as can be seen in the comments following the post). Just advertise the products and let people determine whether or not they may be interested without introducing a racial component.
Of course, our position is that the New York Times has long practiced irresponsible and severely biased journalism with anti-American posturing and should not be patronized by most Americans. Let economics do the talking and facilitate them going bankrupt.
Given the recent and scandalous revelations that global warming is a complete fabrication “based” on sham, manufactured data to support the position, you would think that this story would garner at least some interest. Actually, this outrageous fraud perpetrated by abhorrent, ethically corrupt individuals in collusion with powerful, connected and avaricious individuals (Al Gore, Michael Moore, etc.) should be Front page news and one of the lead stories in broadcast and cable news. This is a story of trans-national collusion, corruption, scientific malfeasance, greed and aggrandizement of power involving individuals, companies, organizations and politicians. It is the Watergate of the early 21st century. Climategate.
Not unexpectedly, except for Fox News, no other major television news has mentioned this bombshell of a story. That includes ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. Approximately five days and zero coverage. Why? Because the far left and many liberals want to believe that global warming is true – it is part of their ideology. They don’t want to destroy an important tenet which is also intimately associated with their environmental issues. Showcasing this fraud would be significantly detrimental to the environmental movement.
Once again, the overwhelming majority of the media has abdicated its responsibilities to the public. And they wonder why they are being marginalized by the American public while Fox News continues to shine, become more influential and be watched by a rapidly increasing viewership? The bottom line is that if you want the relevant, important news – watch Fox News.
The double standard that is used both by the media and liberal politicians is inexcusably blatant. Furthermore, the sycophantic media's abdication of its journalistic responsibilities regarding Obama and its lack of integrity is egregious and should not be tolerated. An appropriate response is a boycott of those media companies that condone this behavior.
In an amazing development that may rival the Apollo 11 moon landing, a few individuals in the liberal news media are actually questioning the infallibility and transcendence of their venerated deity, Barack Obama. They are beginning to perceive chinks in his heretofore impenetrable armor which they hadn’t acknowledged previously. In an editorial, avowed liberal commentator Howard Fineman scrutinizes Obama’s performance so far and concludes that he comes up short on many accounts.
The following are some of his more insightful assessments:
The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my."
Members of Obama's own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is.
He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list … but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix.
Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected…
The far left film maker Oliver Stone has long expressed anti-American sentiments both in his statements and in movies. His most recent one which is premiering at the Venice Film Festival, called “South of the Border, provides an apparently flattering portrayal of Hugo Chavez, the belligerent dictator of Venezuela. This is the same Chavez who has ruthlessly suppressed the rights and freedoms of the Venezuelan people, is actively engaged in supporting insurgencies to overthrow democracies in surrounding countries, supports totalitarian policies, hobnobs and reveres Fidel Castro, and relentlessly threatens American interests and companies as part of the “Axis of Evil”.
Because Americans still have “some” freedom of speech and rights accorded by our Constitution, Stone is free to express his radical sentiments in support of the tyrant Chavez and opposed to general American interests and views. The same can’t be said of the Venezuelan citizens under Chavez.
Stone’s next reverential work: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran! Can’t wait.
We can effectively express our disdain for Oliver Stone’s radical agenda and his active support and propagandist portrayals of such tyrants by exerting our rights – both verbally and economically. Saveyourrights.com strongly recommends that Americans boycott all films and merchandise that Stone would benefit financially from.
The following editorial more extensively elucidates the dangers that Chavez poses to South America, the United States and the World in general
We reported on June 21st and June 24th ABC’s championing of Obama’s healthcare plan with an all day extravaganza in the White House replete with positive stories and angles and no opposing points of view. This included no commercials that contained content critical of the plan. Most of the media have been cheerleading sycophants of Obamanocare – but of course denying their partiality.
As further evidence (like we didn’t have enough already) of their unabashed monolithic support for Obamanocare, both NBC and ABC have refused to air a national ad that is critical of the legislation. The commercial is by the League of American Voters and features a neurosurgeon who warns that the proposed government controlled health care system will lead to the rationing of medical care.
We deplore racism no matter what form or towards which group it is directed. Since Obama’s election, there has been a proliferation of racist sentiment spewing from the black community and directed towards other racial groups, particularly Whites. It is as if they see this intolerable behavior as their right in victory akin to the destructive celebrations that transpire following basketball championships such as with the Lakers this year.
This behavior is reprehensible and must be punished and stopped. Appallingly though not surprisingly, Obama and the far left news media have been irresponsibly and abjectly silent on the matter. They surely would not condone it if the KKK or other white-supremacist groups issued vile racist comments.
The most recent high profile racist vitriol can be claimed by Jamie Foxx who is a repeat offender. The videos below display two separate incidents which patently reveal his hateful, despicable racist character. The first one is an excerpt of his comments after the death of Michael Jackson. There is no spin here, no “taken out of context”. Jamie Foxx is a blatant RACIST whose behavior should be punished. We therefore strongly recommend that you BOYCOTT his movies and any events in which he participates in as well as refrain from purchasing any products from which he collects royalties such as DVD’s.
Jamie Foxx is officially added to our Boycott list.
Just when you thought that media bias couldn’t get much worse – it just did. ABC’s all day broadcasting from within the White House is nothing short of shocking and outrageous. For even the most resistant holdouts against feeling that there is a strong liberal media bias, this should dispel that notion.
We have seen myriad examples of political correctness run amok in America. College campuses which should be a bastion of free speech and ideas for all have been notorious offenders and we’re not just talking about small institutions. Names like Columbia, Yale, and Harvard are but just a few. Activities, events, individuals and speeches that don’t toe the liberal philosophy are restricted, prohibited or harassed. Events or activities run by or honoring the military are thwarted and protested but book a terrorist or dignitary from a rogue nation to vilify the United States and voila – we have a well organized, publicized, funded and secure event.
Students are relentlessly indoctrinated both by their liberal professors and the politically correct and historically revised textbooks that they are forced to learn from. Do you want to know how a student who thoroughly researches and writes a brilliant, coherent, well organized and supported paper gets a C or D? He or she displays a conservative point of view!
The following editorial discusses problems of political correctness on campuses.
Americans are getting restive and angry with the bloodless coup we find ourselves in the midst of thanks to the Obama Administration, Pelosi, Reid and other ultra-left Liberals in Congress. In every direction we turn, there are threats to our rights, freedoms and economic well-being. We have ubiquitous taxes and proposals for more taxes. Giving our fair share means taking as much as possible from those who are productive and distributing it to those who are lazy, undeserving or illegally living in this country.
Warp speed to Socialism with consolidation of power and wealth to the Big Brother Government! It is now the proud owner of GM, wants to determine pay for employees of companies even beyond those to whom it has bailed out and gives sweetheart deals to unions while illegally shafting bond holders.
In the legal department, we have a nominee (Sotomayor) that in no uncertain terms states that some individuals are more equal than others, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. She also has indicated disdain for the First Amendment (Right to Free Speech) and the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) as well. We haven’t yet reviewed her stance on the other Amendments.
We can go on and on enumerating more of these radical changes and confiscatory policies being implemented but you get the point. Meanwhile, where is the opposition, the Republican Party who is supposed to represent and speak out for us? They are a minority party but their influence and presence appears to be microscopic. Perception and appearance is everything and they appear to be a feckless group though this may not necessarily the case. Instead, several passionate, articulate and well-informed Conservatives in the media have effectively taken on the challenges. Like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell and many others. Conservatives in America have been active with grassroot organizations and, of course, the Tea Parties.
The Republican Party needs to be more articulate, passionate, aggressive, bold, persistent and omnipresent rather than just polite and trying to be thought of positively by the liberal media. Maybe they should seek inspiration from their New York counterparts who recently staged a coup in their State Senate.
The blatant arrogance, belligerence and intolerance of this CNN reporter typifies the “mainstream” media’s treatment of opinions that do not match its own. This problem has reached such epidemic proportions that a preponderance of reporters, newscasters, networks, newspapers and magazines fall into this category. They will even attack the average American citizen as seen here. Remember Joe the Plumber and what was done to him when he was an obscure citizen just asking a simple question of Barack Obama?
For fair, balanced and insightful news, a good place to start is FOX News.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments