Posted tagged ‘politics’

Media Matters Sets Sarah Palin Up

October 28, 2010

This morning I came across the following video posted at TheBlaze.com:

[blip.tv http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgof9GwI%2Em4v%5D

(Source)

Here’s the gist of the interview…David Brock, the founder and CEO of the leftist Media Matters, began his rant about Glenn Beck.  He claimed that Glenn is erratic and portrayed him as if he is some kind of immediate threat to national security, going as far as to say that we’re on the precipice of another Oklahoma City bombing…oh…ok.  That’s kind of strange.  I would almost conclude that David Brock or the people at Media Matters have never watched a single episode of Glenn Beck because then they would know that he constantly pleads with people to remain nonviolent.  But all it takes is a quick trip to Media Matters’ web site, and then you’ll see tons of clips from Fox News, including clips from the Glenn Beck program.  These clips are all featured as part of their war on Fox News.  I guess media only matters when it’s pushing their socialist agenda.

Anyway, he then calls on Sarah Palin to stand up in opposition to Glenn Beck.  I quote Brock:

She needs to step up because she’s a leader of the Republican party, of the conservative movement, she’s a Tea Party favorite.  She is the one person in this country right now today who, in the national interest…just in the moment, to put partisanship aside, could pull this country back from the precipice of another Oklahoma City.

Wow…that’s the nicest thing I’ve ever heard anyone on the left say about Sarah Palin.  In fact, that’s the only nice thing I’ve ever heard anyone on the left say about Sarah Palin.  “Help us, Sarah Palin.  You’re our only hope.”  Very Star Wars-y of them.

Now obviously something about this stunk.  This definitely did not seem like an authentic cry for help.  And Media Matters reaching across the aisle?  Yeah, right…  I posted my thoughts immediately in the comments section:

It’s propaganda, plain and simple.  They paint the picture for you,  initiate the set-up, and then present false conclusions.  Sadly, there are plenty of people who will be duped by it.

Well, I came home from work today and saw this article posted on The Blaze:

For Standing With Beck, Media Matters Claims Palin Supports Terrorism

WHAT?!?  NO WAY!!!

Here’s an excerpt from David Brock’s statement today, as posted on The Blaze:

On Tuesday, I asked Sarah Palin to use her influential voice to stop attempted incidents of domestic terrorism incited by right-wing extremists like Glenn Beck. By telling Beck, ‘I stand with you,’ Palin — Fox News’ star contributor — now associates herself with acts of violence and the insane conspiracy theories and hate speech behind them.

Weird!  It’s like he did exactly what I said he would do.  These progressives/socialists are so predictable.  But wait!  That’s not all…remember what I said about the people boycotting Glenn Beck?

The progressive People for the American Way is also working with Media Matters in a boycott of Beck’s programming and the Fox News Channel.  The group’s president, Michael Keegan, joined Media Matters in denouncing Palin…

Here is a bit of what Keegan had to say:

Democrats, Republicans, independents and even tea party members should be able to agree that inciting listeners to violence isn’t acceptable.  It‘s profoundly disappointing that someone laying the groundwork to run for president doesn’t agree with that.

It’s as if they were attempting to capitalize on the success of the smear campaign and boycott against Glenn Beck by pulling Sarah Palin into it as well.  Who would have seen that coming?

James Carville Has a Bad Memory

November 2, 2009

For anyone who hasn’t been paying attention to current events, there is a special election coming up tomorrow in New York to fill the House seat vacated by John McHugh, who resigned to become U.S. Secretary of the Army.  Up until this past Saturday, the three candidates in the race were Diedre Scozzafava (left-leaning Republican), Bill Owens (Democrat), and Doug Hoffman (Conservative Party).  However, Scozzafava suspended her campaign when it became clear that she had no chance with conservative Hoffman in the race.  A day later she endorsed Democrat Bill Owens.  This race has been getting national attention because it could be indicative of a conservative resurgence in the country and would be a big victory for conservatives who are fed up with the Republican party.

Yesterday, James Carville, sleazy Democrat operative, took the opportunity to spin this as evidence that conservatives and Republicans are narrow-minded and that the message from this campaign is:

“if you’re not our definition–if you’re not a Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin directive of what constitutes a Republican, if you don’t check the necessary boxes, then they’re going to primary you….People have said this for a long time this is the kind of party they wanted, they now have it.”

(Source)

What is this guy even talking about?  Scozzafava’s failure isn’t the Republican Party’s doing.  The RNC endorsed her.  The Republican Party didn’t bring in Doug Hoffman to challenge her.  He’s a Conservative Party candidate.  And how dare conservatives support the conservative candidate who represents their values rather than simply voting along party lines…now that would be narrow-minded.

What makes this especially funny is that while James Carville is blasting the Republican Party for something they didn’t even do, his own party did exactly that to Joe Lieberman three years ago.  Lieberman’s support of the Iraq War was too much for them.  When it came time for Lieberman’s reelection, the Democrats said, “See ya!  We’re endorsing someone else to run against you in the primaries because you’re not a true Democrat.”  Ned Lamont, his challenger, won that primary so Lieberman decided to run against him as an independent.  I had a good laugh when Lieberman won the election and kept his seat.  I stopped laughing when Lieberman chose to realign with the Democrats.  Anyhow, Carville didn’t seem to have a problem with the Democrats tossing Lieberman out for not conforming.  When asked if he supported Lieberman’s run as an independent, he responded simply, “Well, I’m not from Connecticut, but I support the Democratic nominee” (Source).  I guess he forgot about that, or maybe he was just hoping we had all forgotten.

The Gross Misrepresentation of the Tax Day Tea Parties

April 18, 2009

Depending on where you get your news, you may know a good bit about the tea parties held on April 15th and what they were all about.  I doubt there is anyone that didn’t know about them (with the exception of President Obama…I’ll get to that later), but there may be plenty of people who have a horribly distorted view of the parties thanks to the purposeful and irresponsible misrepresentation on the part of the media and liberal commentators.

Allow me to briefly explain what the tea parties are all about.  Note that I say “are” and not “were.”  The tea parties didn’t begin on April 15th, and they didn’t end on April 15th.  This is a genuine grassroots movement involving people with a variety of political viewpoints.  It’s about protesting the increasing role of government in our lives, the excessive spending habits of our government, and the taxpayer money that will be used to fund these habits.

As I said, you may not know this depending on who you rely on to deliver the news.  Let’s take a look at how CNN “reported” on the tea parties from the Chicago tea party.  While you’re watching this, keep in mind that this is supposed to be a reporter, not a commentator.

Wow…Susan Roesgen wastes no time in distorting what the tea parties are all about and thus slanting this story to fulfill her agenda.  It’s just “a party for Obama-bashers,” she says.  Curiously, after saying this, the cameraman begins to pan the crowd and a sign is clearly visible saying “Republicans SUCK Too!”  Wait…I thought this was just about bashing Obama.

The point of her story was clearly to depict the party as some kind of gathering solely for right-wing conservatives, but that is simply not the case.  A recent Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll found that out of 377 Democrats and 183 Independents, 29% of each group would be willing to participate in a tea party (Source).  Not only that, but of the Democrats polled, 94% held a favorable opinion of President Obama.  There would obviously have to be some overlapping there.  What?!?  You mean people who like Obama would go to the tea parties???  I thought these were just for Obama-bashers!

Democrat Leonard Jacobs explained in an editorial why he would be attending a tax day tea party:

…let’s face it, fiscal responsibility is an American issue. Does this mean we will inevitably define certain aspects of fiscal restraint differently? Sure we will — but that doesn’t mean fiscal restraint cannot also be the shared American ideal. I will attend the tea party in Manhattan tomorrow night not because I’m a Democrat or a Republican, but because I’m an American. My nation comes first.

(Source)

Once again, that is coming from a Democrat…and one who supports President Obama’s stimulus package at that.

Also worth mentioning is that out of the 294 Republicans that participated in this poll, 48% said they would not be willing to participate in a tea party while 47% said they would.  For a movement that’s supposed to be solely conservative and right-wing, you would think a majority of Republicans would be willing to participate.

So why ignore the facts and portray these tea parties strictly as a conservative fringe movement?  It’s simple really…if you can make the participants look like a bunch of biased radicals, you can downplay the significance of their rallies.  No grassroots movement of legitimately concerned citizens here…just a bunch of crazies who are bitter because their candidate didn’t win the election.

Now let’s look at how Ms. Roesgen treated the people she interviewed.  The first man she interviewed did have a pretty radical sign.  The other side that I’ve seen in pictures was a lot worse.  But as a reporter, it was not her job to chastise the man and to teach him a lesson in morals.  And didn’t you love how she picked the guy out of the crowd who probably had the most radical sign there to interview first to further set the tone she was aiming for?  Seeing this brings to question…where was this kind of outrage when people were saying the same things about President Bush?  Well it just didn’t exist as can be seen in a clip of a Susan Roesgen report featured in a Newsbusters article in January 2006:

No big deal.  Adolf Lucifer Bush is merely a look-alike…no reason to be offended by that.

How about the next guy she interviewed?  She wouldn’t even let him deliver his point without interrupting him and demanding to know what that had to do with taxes.  Guess who missed the point!  As I’ve already discussed, the tea parties aren’t just about taxes.  Oh, but sir, your state gets $50 billion out of the stimulus bill!!!  What is this woman not understanding?  Most of the people there are likely going to be against the stimulus bill…  I guess she’s the type of person who will support something if she’s getting something out of it rather than being motivated by principles like most of the people at the tea parties.

One of the priceless moments of this video was when Ms. Roesgen pointed out that it was “highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox.”  What a joke!  You mean Fox News saw a huge news story brewing and decided to cover it in-depth and promote its coverage?  What were they thinking?  What a bunch of partisan conservative hacks!  I guess CNN and the rest of the mainstream media thought it was a smart strategic decision to ignore a big story or cover it briefly and with disgusting bias.  And yes, it was a big story.  Anytime you have hundreds of thousands of people gathering in one day for one purpose across the nation, you have a big story.  There were some small towns that had about 1,000 people in attendance.  That in itself is a news story…I know we’ve all seen much more insignificant stories than that on national news.

So Fox did its job as a news organization and REPORTED THE NEWS!!! What happened as a result?  Fox News outperformed each of its direct competitors (CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN) by at least double the amount of viewers in every single measured time slot on April 15th (Source).  Special Report with Bret Baier, The O’Reilly Factor, and Hannity’s America actually each had more viewers than the shows in the same time slots on the other networks combined.  But this is nothing new.  Fox has been outperforming its competitors for a while now because of its reputation for reporting the news and not ignoring it or slanting it as the others do.  Of course you’ll get opinions from the commentary shows (which also fare a lot better on Fox), but that’s to be expected.

Anyway, Ms. Roesgen concludes her report by saying that the protest is “not really family viewing.”  What?  Are you kidding me?  I guess because she’s gone around and efficiently antagonized the people there and shown what a lousy reporter she is, it’s no longer “family viewing.”  This report really wasn’t fit for anyone…not because of the protesters, but because of her slanted reporting.  It’s not her job to influence opinion.  She is simply supposed to report the news.  Tell us there’s a tea party, maybe interview some people to find out why they are there, thank them, leave.  It’s simple.  Now enjoy a video, courtesy of Founding Bloggers, of a lady at the tea party confronting Ms. Roesgen after her report ended.  CNN forced YouTube to pull the original video based on copyright claims (I suppose because the video featured the actual clip from CNN), yet there are plenty of other clips of the CNN broadcast available that they apparently didn’t have a problem with.  That’s probably because they weren’t attached to a video of Ms. Roesgen being schooled on her shabby reporting.  I think issuing a copyright claim on a news clip is pretty dumb anyway.  Here is the video:

Hopefully you’re enjoying reading this because I’m not quite done yet!  What I’ve shown you and discussed so far isn’t the only way that these tea parties are being misrepresented.  Some are going as far as to label this as a racist movement.  Granted you may find some racists at a gathering designed to protest the policies of a government whose leader happens to be black, that in no way speaks for the crowd as a whole.  That’s like saying that if there happen to be a couple of really drunk people at a bar you’re at that are making a scene and trying to start fights, then everyone who goes to drink at a bar is a violent drunkard.  It’s illogical.  There will be stupid people anywhere you go in life.

I can safely say that at the tea party that I attended along with hundreds of others (maybe around 1,000), I never saw any racist signs or heard any racist talk.  It was a very tame crowd.  But don’t worry…anti-tea party liberals have covered their bases.  Jack and Jill Politics recently published a despicable article in which they took it upon themselves to redefine racism so as to fit the description of many tea party-goers:

Here’s the new criteria for an undercover racist attack:

1) Is it unique to Obama, i.e. is it a phrase we’ve never heard before applied to any other president or is it something we haven’t heard in recent memory? For example: he’s not an American citizen or he’s a socialist who’s planning re-education camps for young people.

2) Is it illogical or impossible – does the assertion plainly contradict the facts? For example: not an American citizen, socialist, tax raiser, re-education camps for young people.

3) Is it repeated, over and over, by a desperate person whose team lost badly in the last election & who adopts a wide-eyed, credulous, nodding stare pronouncing the lie slowly and precisely with a watchful eye to see if the listeners are buying it. For example: not an American citizen, socialist, elitist, drug seller, tax raiser or terrorist.

Optional: Does the assertion cause nervousness, embarrassment or confusion among non-blacks? When other white people such as Tom Brokaw or John Stewart sense something wrong and start to ask questions like “Do you really believe that?”, you know for sure you’re in the racist attack zone.

(Source)

There you have it…if you didn’t vote for Obama and you call him a “socialist,” then you, my friend, are an undercover racist using code for the n-word.  That makes me want to puke.

Actress and not-funny comedian Janeane Garofalo also agrees that this is all about racism:

Garofalo actually called Party-goers “a bunch of teabagging rednecks,” adding “this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

(Source)

She also says it’s about immigrant-bashing.  Well why was this black immigrant in the following video being cheered on with thunderous applause when she said that the parties are not about any of that (or why was she even allowed to speak there to begin with)?  Skip to 1:52 to hear her speech:

If these tea parties are about racism, then why was Alan Keyes (a famous black conservative) invited to speak at three tea parties on April 15th in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Indiana (Source)?  He also spoke at one in Pittsburgh a week earlier.  Also, why were there some black people at the tea party that I attended?

Well Janeane Garofalo has an explanation for that:

But these people, all white for the most part, unless there’s some people with Stockholm syndrome there.

(Source)

……I can’t imagine a more racist thing she could have said to explain black presence at the tea parties.  These black people couldn’t possibly have been there to express their own opinions…no way.  They were confused, they were simply saying what their white “captors” had conditioned them to feel.  They were simply black shells expressing white ideas.  How absolutely sickening.

I think I’ve done more than enough to show that these tea parties were not about being conservative or right-wing, not about Obama-bashing, not about racism, not about any of the ridiculous things that opponents would have you believe.  This is a legitimate movement of Americans who want to express their discontent with the increasing size of government and/or the spending practices of the government.  But those on the far left don’t want you to understand that, and so they choose to insult their fellow Americans and twist the meaning of these tea parties into something that they are absolutely not rather than just debate the true issues.  Don’t let them fool you…they are the most intolerant bunch of people you could ever have the displeasure of dealing with.

Finally, how did the White House respond to these tea parties?

When Americans are gathering and expressing their concerns that the government doesn’t care about them and is not listening to what they have to say, President Obama responds, “You’re right.  I’m not listening to you.  In fact, I don’t even know you exist.”  That’s his way of acknowledging us with the middle finger. A guest on Neil Cavuto’s show this morning made a great point, but unfortunately I can’t remember his name to give him proper credit.  He said that Obama is showing great interest and desire to listen to our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he apparently doesn’t care in the least bit to listen to the citizens of his own country.  Way to lead, Mr. President.  I should probably mention that the person who made this point was a black man, so he must just be suffering from Stockholm syndrome.  I guess we should disregard him.

Obama Administration “Might Consider” Defending Our Country

March 30, 2009

While North Korea is preparing to break international law by launching a missile (supposedly to put a satellite into orbit), Defense Secretary Robert Gates is saying that we’re just not prepared to do anything about it.  Addressing the possibility of shooting the missile down, Gates had this to say:

“I think if we had an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii, that looked like it was headed for Hawaii or something like that, we might consider it,” Gates said. “But I don’t think we have any plans to do anything like that at this point.”

(Source)

Well great!  It’s good to know that the Obama administration might consider shooting the missile down if it was headed for American soil.  But don’t get your hopes or anything.  I guess we’d be demanding too much of them if we expected them to do what is necessary to defend America and protect American lives.

The Global War on Terror is Over

March 24, 2009

Make way for the “Overseas Contingency Operations Against Man-Caused Disasters.”  I wish I was joking.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ “

(Source)

As for the second part:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

(Source)

For a presidential campaign that railed against the war in Iraq as a distraction from the war on terror, Obama’s administration sure does seem strangely intent to make us forget that there even is a war on terror going on at all.  War on terror?  What’s that?  I don’t even know what terror is.  You’re confusing me.  Stop it.

To add to it, the Obama administration will no longer use the term “enemy combatants” to describe the…well…the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay (Source).  I guess since they plan to close it down, they want us to forget that there was ever a valid reason to hold them to begin with.  In the same Justice Department filing that announced the dropping of this term, it was also stated that those formerly known as enemy combatants could only be held if they “substantially supported Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Apparently they believed that the Bush administration guideline allowing detainment of those who “directly supported” these terrorist groups was too broad…  If “direct support” is too broad of a term, I cringe to think what “substantial support” could mean.  Maybe we can only detain those who detonated the bombs?  I guess we’ll have to collect the pieces of them first.

Obama and Geithner Take Responsibility…a Bit Too Late

March 19, 2009

This morning it was reported that President Obama has taken responsibility for the AIG bonus mess:

“Listen, I’ll take responsibility. I’m the president,” Obama said at a “town hall” meeting in Costa Mesa, California, where his bid to sell his economic revival policies was swamped by news coverage of the bonus fiasco for a fourth day.

“We didn’t draft these contracts. We’ve got a lot on our plate — but it is appropriate when you’re in charge to make sure that stuff doesn’t happen like this,” he added, amid outrage across the United States.

(Source)

I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as far as how much specific information he had about all of this.  That doesn’t change the fact, however, that he signed the stimulus bill into law and should have known exactly what he was signing.  Therefore, he should have known about the “Dodd amendment” and dealt with it before it got to this point, and he seems to be acknowledging that.

Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner also took responsibility for the mess today by admitting that the Treasury Department did indeed work with Chris Dodd to add the amendment to the stimulus bill:

In an interview with CNN’s Ali Velshi, Geithner said the Treasury Department did talk to Sen. Chris Dodd about a clause he put forth that would have strictly limited executive bonuses.

The Treasury Department was concerned that legislation that would restrict contractual bonuses would not hold up to legal challenges, Geithner said.

“We expressed concern about this specific version. We wanted to make sure it was strong enough to survive legal challenge,” Geithner said.

(Source)

This confession from Geithner comes only after Senator Chris Dodd (who previously lied about his role) admitted to inserting the amendment into the stimulus bill at the urging of the Treasury Department.  Geithner still claims to have not known the full scale of the bonus issues until last week, but it’s quite clear that he foresaw a problem over a month ago when requesting that the amendment be inserted into the bill.  The fact that this issue was singled out and addressed by Treasury would seem to indicate that it was known then that bonuses would be paid, therefore the government should have begun working with AIG then to come up with a reasonable solution.

As I said in last night’s post, AIG may have indeed been contractually obligated to pay these bonuses.  Let’s assume for a moment that they were.  In that case, the “Dodd amendment” was necessary to preserve rule of law.  Had Geithner and Dodd (and any other Democrats) done their duty and publicly addressed the issue earlier, this whole ordeal probably wouldn’t have gotten so out-of-hand.  Instead, they wasted time covering it up and lying about it and let it just spin completely out of control.  By not taking responsibility earlier, they’ve given fellow Democrats the opportunity to play dumb about the law that they passed and pretend to be furious about it, contributing greatly to the unhealthy mob mentality that has taken hold.

A product of this mob mentality is the bill just passed in the House today (by about every single Democrat and sadly with significant Republican support) that would enact a retroactive 90% tax on any bonuses received since December 31,2008, by employees with family incomes of over $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in bailout money from the government (Source).  Of course, this would include the bonuses paid by AIG.  But if these bonuses were indeed part of legally-binding contracts (as Democrats apparently believed considering they passed the bill containing the “Dodd amendment”), then they have absolutely no business taking this money from them.  This is nothing but an excuse to pass socialist legislation to take money from those who they believe made too much.  I don’t like the fact that people at a horribly performing company that has received a lot of taxpayer money are getting bonuses, but if they were legally entitled to them, so be it.

Even if these contracts didn’t really obligate AIG to pay the bonuses, this is not the way to solve the problem.  The truth is that the problem was solved last week:

In a letter sent to congressional leaders, Geithner said he persuaded AIG Chief Executive Edward M. Liddy last week to scrap or cut hundreds of millions of dollars in future salaries and other compensation after determining that the bonuses already granted would be “legally difficult to prevent.”

Geithner said the company would be required to pay the $165 million from corporate operating funds as part of the final terms for a previously announced $30-billion line of credit from the government. In addition, the credit line will be reduced by the same amount.

(Source)

The Treasury has already worked out a way to recover this money!  Democrats in Congress knew this, but they saw their opportunity to pass some socialist legislation to take even more money and took advantage of this mob mentality to do so.  This really only strengthens the case that some conservatives are making that this may be a bill of attainder (one intended to punish specific individuals), which is prohibited by the Constitution.  They no longer have a noble excuse.  This bill was obviously designed with the sole purpose of punishing the receivers of the AIG bonuses.  I can only hope that this bill doesn’t get any further and that the American people will see all of this for what it really is.

Some Awesome Protest Signs

March 13, 2009

scotus_guns_t365

Yeah, too bad that guy’s head is in the way of the last word…  But if you can’t figure that one out, you probably hold the opposite political viewpoint of the guy holding the sign and it will just make you mad, so don’t worry about it.

a160_s8

Nice.  Too bad loony liberal protesters don’t feel the same way because we can’t seem to keep them occupied with jobs.

Now for misspelled protest signs:

tomany2

A protest sign from the 5th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.  What makes this so much more awesome is that the second person from the left is Cindy Sheehan.  I mean…I guess they have a point.  At that point in time, to many, the war had been going on for 5 years.  I don’t think that’s what they were trying to say, though.  That is pretty simple math, so I’m not sure who would be debating over that.  Perhaps people ignorant enough to parade a misspelled sign around town..fortunately for them, their math skills are at least elementary school level because they got the number right.

prop_8_protest-women

Two in one picture?!?  How lucky could you possibly get?  I hope to one day have a marrige ceremony in a churh.

34394843232327ffp64ot2336679-xroqdf23238668393ot1lsi

Classic…a Muslim that can’t spell “Muslim.”

hollykoran

This is the one that got me started looking for misspelled protest signs.  Actually, to be honest, this isn’t exactly the one.  I saw a picture of other Muslims who love their “Holly Quran.”  I’m not sure exactly what that is.  A special edition maybe?