On my Twitter account, I follow a few hundred mainstream media-types (keep the enemy closer, right?), and unless I’ve missed it (and I hope I have), not a single one has spoken out in defense of Roland Martin. Not one. How scary is that. The politically correct Groupthink is so strong, they’re all apparently afraid to say anything for fear GLAAD’s McCarthyism will turn against them.

Here are the two tweets Mr. Martin was suspended for after GLAAD pretended to take offense:

“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.”

“Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass.”

The word “gay” appears nowhere, and it is painfully obvious that Martin is mocking the game of soccer as something less than masculine. But by no rational, reasonable, or fair standard is what Martin tweeted in any way offensive or out of line. Martin’s only sin is that his tweets weren’t politically correct.

In fact, the only bigotry at work here is coming from Politico’s Dylan Byers, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, and GLAAD – those who automatically equate a lack of masculinity to homosexuality, when nothing could be further from the truth. I know plenty of gay men who are plenty masculine and I know more than a few straight metrosexuals who aren’t. Equating a lack of masculinity to homosexuality is like equating “food stamps” to black people. The bigotry and homophobia is coming from those making the connection, not the other way around. 

(more…)

During the rise of the tea party Anderson Cooper called conservatives “tea baggers” on CNN and remarked about “teabagging.” The network featured a multitude of guests and contributors who likened tea partiers to nazis, bigots, pick your poison. No pressure was ever brought about to censor the speech of those babbling on air. CNN never found any of the remarks objectionable. Fast-forward to present time. Dana Loesch mocks the absurdity of the left’s predictable Outrage Chic on her radio show, Erick Erickson mocks occupiers on his radio show, Roland Martin mocks soccer (who doesn’t mock soccer?) and David Beckham’s underwear using his personal Twitter account and all hell breaks loose. Note: not a single one of these individuals said any of this on CNN’s airwaves, as demonstrated above. That doesn’t matter to the Progressive Inquisition.

Progressives have been falling over themselves to get Loesch and Erickson fired from CNN since CNN decided it wasn’t going to actually attempt to make money and offer a variety of opinion. Progressives hate variety, they loathe diversity of thought. The George Soros mouthpiece, Media Matters for America actually pays people to listen to Erickson and Loesch’s radio shows, record them, and try to trump up outrage over nothing. For instance, last week Loesch said that women can use birth control methods such as pills, condoms, and natural family planning as their “choice,” as opposed to the “choice” of murdering a baby. Eric Boehlert, a man who, to our knowledge, is not a licensed OB/GYN and has not, to our knowledge, ever been a woman at any time, mocked the idea that a woman is smart enough on her own to actually prevent pregnancy naturally. Because they don’t teach about menstrual cycles in high school, or the most fertile times of the month for a woman, information Boehlert apparently missed out on in school. They tried to get CNN’s attention with it on Twitter after posting it to their site.

Erickson joked about violent, raping, drug peddling occupiers getting tased — the violent movement MMfA endorsed — and MMfA/Boehlert put the clip on their site and also tried to get CNN’s attention with it. MMfA endorsed Occupy, defended it, and said nothing with this hit a cop in the face with a brick, when women were being raped, drugs being sold, absolutely nothing when the White House was shot up and smoke bombs were thrown by occupy campers. That wasn’t bad enough to earn their condemnation but cracking a joke when one of them is so out of control they have to be tasered for the safety of the police — and the person who cracked the joke is the bad guy. Those are their priorities.

They failed. They did the same thing last month as well, completely proving the point Loesch was making about hysterical reactions to the Marines appearing to urinate on the bodies of dead terrorists who had just tried to kill them in battle.

CNN didn’t fire Loesch, they didn’t fire Erickson, either which enraged Boehlert and MMfA. It showed their impotence, their weakness, that no one truly gives a damn what they do all day over on their little corner of the Internet.

Roland Martin spent Super Bowl Sunday writing #rolandsrules, jokes about watching the Super Bowl. I cannot stand the man’s politics and I damn near hated him during the midterm elections because he was one of the racial demagogues who called tea partiers every name in the book. His Tweets were funny. He joked about appetizers, about soccer — because soccer is stupid — and David Beckham’s underwear. His Tweets angered GLAAD, who believe that they have the patent on soccer and David Beckham’s underwear, thus if you insult and/or mock them, they will take it as gay bashing. Advocacy to GLAAD is trolling Twitter trying to see how many different ways innocuous Tweets can offend them.

GLAAD does more to make a mockery of themselves than Martin or anyone else could ever do.

CNN suspended Martin over the Tweets as they are close with GLAAD.

(more…)

Along with playing dumb on the rhetoric of Rep. Allen West in a recent speech (no one believes he was suggesting Democrats should actually leave America when he said they could take their message elsewhere), CNN’s Soledad O’Brien played fast and loose with food stamp usage increases under Bush versus Obama to put Rep. Allen West on the spot.

O’Brien falsely asserted that the number of food stamp recipients rose more under former President Bush than Obama. Not only are her numbers off, but according to The Daily Jobs update, she failed to acknowledge that the respective increases took place over eight years for Bush and only three years under Obama. That alone is hardly an accurate comparison. And it gets worse.

Yes, usage went up by 11 million in eight years of Bush, but O’Brien claims that under Obama, the number of recipients went up 13 million, from 33 to 46 million. That’s incorrect. Obama’s baseline was 28 million, and usage has risen by 18 million to 46 million in just 3 years. (more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Lynn Woolley and Cliff Kincaid:

When the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure made a decision to sever its ties with America’s number one seller of abortions, Planned Parenthood, the media went to war. The media coverage was slanted in such a way that “mainstream” reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Lisa Myers of NBC News were openly advocating for a point of view—pressuring Komen to reverse course and give in to Planned Parenthood.

Why would the media go to war over something as seemingly insignificant as a policy change regarding funding at Komen, a private cancer charity? Part of the answer lies in the fact that, for the media, “women’s rights” take precedence over all other rights, including the rights of children. This is what “feminism” has become and this is what the Komen controversy was supposed to be about. In reality, it had nothing to do with breast cancer because the fact is that most Planned Parenthood affiliates don’t even provide mammograms. That money from Komen was used to refer women at risk of contracting the disease somewhere else.

So the issue was something else as well. While there were references to Planned Parenthood being an “abortion provider,” there was no explanation of what this “service” actually “provides”—a procedure that destroys a human life. This is why the annual March for Life against abortion is mostly ignored by the major media. It is a sad fact that even some conservative women still think that Planned Parenthood is simply an organization that provides information about voluntary family planning.

You saw very little in the mainstream media from pro-life people who supported Komen’s initial decision. The bias is so pronounced that the media long ago adopted the language of the Left. The term “pro-life” is never used. But “pro-choice” is. Newspapers use the term “abortion rights” to describe the political process of terminating the lives of the unborn, but use “anti-abortion” when referring to those of us who value human life. We are “against.” They are for “rights.”

So we made it a point to tune into the Big Three network newscasts on Friday night—hours after Nancy Brinker of Komen had caved. We wanted to see if this story would be treated in a neutral manner, or if the stories would be written from the standpoint that Brinker did the right thing—and, why did it take her so long? We did receive a shock, though it was a mild one. One of the three networks actually did a fairly nice job.

(more…)

“The tea party has dispersed,” Gloria Borger proclaimed on CNN after the Romney victory in Nevada.

Huh? what does that mean?

She concludes, as many in the Activist Old Media have, that a Romney victory in Nevada is a defeat for the tea party.

My conclusion; the media is looking for any reason, any reason, to declare the tea party dead. Plus, a few recent polls show that Romney actually is getting tea party support.

The Super Bowl is a big game so that means the tea party is dead. There is snow in Denver, so the tea party is dead. As long as you say the tea party is dead, you have a spot on a panel with the Activist Old Media.

It just amazes the media that Mitt Romney can run away with a state like Nevada, with a prominent tea party contingent (albeit for the first time in the primaries; it’s too early to say it’s a trend), so they conclude the tea party must be dead.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

(more…)

You would think that a media “analyst,” like Politico’s Dylan Byers, would be one of America’s primary defenders of free speech, especially political speech. But rather than defend political speech and satire, Byers is nothing more than a left-wing book burner, a politically correct speech-enforcer who wants certain speech chilled and specific individuals silenced. His blacklisting attempts might be disguised as passive-aggressive concern and requests for comment from employers, but when the outcome desired is obvious — to get people fired and/or reprimanded for something they’ve said — it’s still blacklisting.

Lately, Byers has been on a rampage to get two conservative CNN contributors in hot water, our own Dana Loesch and Red State’s Erick Ericson. Today Byers joined forces with GLAAD — an organization notorious for its bullying, speech policing, and un-American use of “re-education” camps – to target CNN’s Roland Martin:

Roland Martin has now become the third CNN political analyst to cause controversy this year.

Last month, Dana Loesch celebrated U.S. Marines who had urinated on Taliban corpses, announcing, “I’d drop trou and do it too.”

Last week, Erick Erickson celebrated the tasing of an Occupy D.C. protester, saying, “Watching a hippie protester get tased just makes my day.”

Now, the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is calling for Martin’s removal from the network for a comment he made on Twitter about H&M’s Super Bowl ad featuring a near-naked David Beckham: “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!”

In Dylan Byers’ world, the obvious political humor Loesch and Erickson used to make a point, and a silly joke tweeted by Martin, is a “CNN political contributor problem.”

(more…)

Right off the bat C-SPAN should have aired this hearing. There is absolutely no excuse not to air it on TV. Since I had to stream it online I kept my TV on DirecTV News Mix to keep an eye on the news. The only network that had consistent coverage of the testimony was FOX News. I’m not shocked at all. I didn’t see anything about the testimony on the other channels. Jeff Poor from The Daily Caller helped me keep an eye on MSNBC and he didn’t see anything. He said they were hung up on Donald Trump all day. I was informed by a friend on Twitter, Doug Mataconis, that the hearing was discussed on The Situation Room on CNN for about 15 minutes. “Special Report” and The FOX Report both started off with Mr. Holder’s testimony.

Before I continue I noticed some friends on Twitter growing upset that headlines were partisan. The MSM was right: This was a partisan fight and every single Democrat coddled Mr. Holder. The Republicans were the only ones to demand withheld documents and answers from Mr. Holder.

Right after the testimony ended I began searching for coverage of the hearing on Google. First stop was Associated Press. Remember: If the AP doesn’t write anything on Fast & Furious more than likely the rest of the media won’t mention it. Pete Yost did write about the testimony, but hat’s where the excitement ends. Again, he distorts information to favor Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice. Mr. Yost fails to mention the subpoena was issued October 12, 2011. That’s 4 months ago. That is plenty of time to go through the hoops to release the documents. Mr. Yost says, “Though neither side said so, negotiations are almost certain to be the next step.” If you watched the testimony do you honestly think Mr. Issa or Mr. Holder will negotiate? Didn’t think so. Mr. Issa won’t accept anything less than the documents he needs. Then Mr. Yost describes a few dialogues, but doesn’t bother to get down to nitty gritty of the testimony.

(more…)

On Monday Representative Darrell Issa threatened Attorney General Eric Holder with a contempt of Congress if he does not fulfill Mr. Issa’s subpoena from October 12, 2011. Hardly anyone reported it. But then when I went to Google “Issa Eric Holder” this evening and a bunch of results came up. Unfortunately it was not about Mr. Issa’s statements. Instead it’s all about Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice’s remarks.

I’ve mentioned before it’s unusual for the Old Media to run any Fast and Furious news if the AP didn’t run something first. Same thing with this story. AP didn’t bother to post a story about Mr. Issa, but as soon as Mr. Holder says something they’re all over it. It’s quite pathetic and reminds me of Pavlov’s dog. This is the explanation of Mr. Issa’s letter:

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., made the accusation in a letter threatening to seek a contempt of Congress ruling against Attorney General Eric Holder for failing to turn over congressionally subpoenaed documents that were created after problems with Fast and Furious came to light. Holder was to testify Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which Issa chairs.

That’s it. No mention that this is a response to his subpoena on October 12, 2011. No mention of the emails sent Friday night. But the media goes crazy and reprints this article.

Not every outlet used the AP story though. The Washington Post again had an original piece written by Sari Horwitz! Weird, isn’t it, that she writes original posts when the DOJ and Democrats are on the defense. Surprise surprise! The story is on the front page of the website.

(more…)

Oh look! The Justice Department decides to dump 500 pages on Congress on a Friday night! If they really want to be secretive or different they’d choose to dump documents on a Tuesday night. We’re almost looking forward to Friday nights because that’s when we can expect anything about Fast and Furious from the Justice Department.

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to testify on Thursday, February 2 in front of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee so it’s no surprise there was a dump last night. I was looking through my timeline when I saw Michelle Malkin’s tweet about the documents. The link led to NPR, which shocked me they would be the ones to have it plus they included nine pages of the documents. They beat the AP! I have found unless the AP writes about Fast and Furious the majority of the Old Media won’t touch it.

I went to sleep around midnight central time and at that time the only major outlets that covered it were AP, CNN, Washington Post, FOX News, and ABC News. This morning I woke up and saw USA Today posted the AP article. The story was the main story on the front page of their national section, but has since been replaced. It’s not even on the front page anymore. I’d give them props, but it appeared before 6AM and taken down before 9AM CDT. Sorry guys, it doesn’t count when you have it up and taken down before the majority of the country wakes up. It’s also nowhere on the FOX News home page and it’s buried in the politics section. Shame on them since they’ve been consistent with Fast and Furious coverage. CNN does receive credit because it’s still on their home page.

At The Washington Post and ABC News you have to go a search for Fast and Furious in order to find their AP article. The New York Times also buried the AP article. In order to find it you have to go to the bottom of their home page and find the tiny cube for “More News From AP and Reuters.” Click on AP and it’s under AP Politics. But you have to click AP Politics and scroll to the bottom. Even if you search “Fast and Furious” it doesn’t bring up the article. I consider this as NOT covering it New York Times! I’m very disappointed The Washington Times hasn’t even mentioned it. I haven’t seen anything on CBS News either. MSNBC buried the AP article.

Here’s the thing. I know these outlets have investigative reporters. The emails gave me more questions than answers and I’m wondering why no one in the Old Media is pointing this out. I receive Google Alerts for Eric Holder and Operation Fast and Furious. This morning a blog post from Stop The ACLU popped up addressing the same questions I had. NPR brings up this part in the emails, but ignores it and doesn’t realize the importance. Right after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry passed away Monty Wilkinson, Mr. Holder’s deputy chief of staff,  emails Dennis Burke (bold my emphasis), “Tragic. I’ve alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”

(more…)

When John King opened the last CNN-hosted GOP debate with a question regarding Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife, Newt lit into him, putting King on the defensive early. In fact, King remained defensive during CNN’s post-debate report.

“This story did not come from our network,” King contended. “As you also know, it is the subject of conversation on the campaign. I get your point, I take –”

Since the debate, King hasn’t let the issue go. He’s been making media appearances –after the fact–to bolster what many believe was a poor decision. Frankly, it’s hard to envision any mainstream media moderator opening up a Democrat debate with that type of question. They’d be more likely to claim it shouldn’t be asked, as it was the candidate’s personal life, none of our business, and didn’t impact on their ability to govern. (more…)

Media Matters for America (MMfA) must be really afraid of Andrew Breitbart. Once again, he’s their number one target for elimination from mainstream media appearances–even ahead of conservative media luminary Rush Limbaugh, whom MMfA hates with a passion.

The above attack, on MMfA’s front page, is pathetic in form and function. (Note to MMfA editors: “vigorously” only has one “u,” unless you’re not writing to be read by Americans.)

MMfA’s intent is not to respond to anything Breitbart said on CNN–where he defended South Carolinians and conservatives against mainstream media attacks–but to protest the fact that he appeared on CNN.

And what, according to MMfA, has Breitbart said or done that would justify his exclusion from American public discourse? Let’s take each claim in turn: (more…)

The other day on CNN Jimmy Carter accused Newt Gingrich has that “subtlety of racism.”

This isn’t a new argument for Jimmy Carter. He argued Rep. Joe Wilson’s charge that Obama was lying about illegal immigrants receiving health care under ObamaCare was motivated by racial animus:

I think it’s based on racism…. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

But Jimmy Carter is one of the most racist politicians in the history of the modern South as Steve Hayward perceptively argues in The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry.

(more…)

CNN Breaking News reported Newt Gingrich’s denial, during the CNN Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, of an alleged personal scandal–while repeating the original accusation:

What CNN failed to report (Update: until later, at least) was Gingrich’s absolute destruction–historic, on a “You’re No Jack Kennedy” scale–of the network’s attempt, through moderator John King, to make those accusations the focus of the debate:

(more…)

Ari Fleischer calls out Cornell Belcher with a smile.

BELCHER: “What Herman Cain said was a racist, bigoted statement and should be treated like a racist and bigoted person who makes racist and bigoted statements.”

FELSIECHER: “Questioning people’s motives who are trying to help is ionly going to divide people. And I think there’s too great a sensitivity about people who just say Republicans are evil, Republicans are racist, Republicans are wrong. That’s hurtful and that’s just as wrong.

BELCHER:  ”Well, you know, I, I , I, agree with my friend Ari, I wish I had the confidence, by the way, I never called Herman Cain a racist

[CROSSTALK]

FLEISCHER: “You sure did, you sure did.”

BELCHER: “No, I said his language was bigoted, I never called him actually a racist, but I understand the difference between racism and bigotry.”

(more…)

Buried in the middle of this article posted at ABC’s The Note, you will find, in my humble opinion, the real news in this story, and it’s likely buried because it’s horrible, terrible, not-so-very good news for the MSM’s Precious One:

CNN/ORC poll asked voters who they saw as best able to “get the economy moving.” Just 40 percent chose Obama, while 53 percent picked Romney.

This is major news for two reasons. First, Barack Obama sits at a lowly 40% on what is going to be the most important question of this campaign. Secondly, Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner, is polling over 50% on this question. 

What else is 2012 going to be about? I know the MSM is going to try and sell what’s left of their souls to make it about anything else, but good luck with that.

(more…)

Eric Boehlert, serial propagandist and Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, joined the Stephanie Miller show this morning to fling some more dirt at Big Journalism editor-in-chief Dana Loesch.

Boehlert, who has thus far given a pass to men such as Bill Maher and Brit Hume with regard to their comments supporting U.S. Marines who were videotaped urinating on Taliban corpses, joined his hosts in joking about Loesch’s “screeching.”

Miller’s co-host, Chris Lavoie, opened the interview with Boehlert by describing a debate with Loesch on Twitter: “She got really, really screechy and emotional in her responses, and I just kept it on the level.”

Boehlert agreed, affirming Lavoie’s choice of language: “Straight to the screech, straight to the attacks.” He also belittled Loesch, describing her as “an Andrew Breitbart creation.”

Prior to joining Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism in 2010, Loesch had been blogging for more than ten years, and had won an award in 2007 for her column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, among other distinctions.

Boehlert also slammed Loesch for not apologizing for her remarks–an odd claim, given that Media Matters has yet to apologize for the blatant antisemitism of M.J. Rosenberg, or for the lies and distortions of Boehlert himself.

Piling on, Boehlert claimed that Loesch hosts “a radio show, you know, that nobody listens to in the 22nd largest market in the country.” In point of fact, the Dana Show is the number one talk radio show in St. Louis–and in Indianapolis–in its time slot and it was just announced that the show is expanding to three hours.

But if Loesch’s show were really “a radio show that nobody listens to,” why would Boehlert and the left have made such a big deal out of her comments, elevating them to a national level?

Miller provided the answer: (more…)

So, the other day on her local St. Louis radio talk show, our own Dana Loesch said the kind of thing that just a few years ago was celebrated by the mainstream media as the perfect example of “brave and edgy dissent” — “the highest form of patriotism,” and “the kind of free speech our men and women in uniform are fighting for!”

Then Barack Obama became president.

The real mistake Dana made, however, was two-fold. First, she forgot that she’s a conservative and second, she forgot that dissent is only applauded and defended in MSM circles when you defame the troops, not defend them.

Here’s what Dana said:

“Now we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were marines caught urinating on corpses, Taliban corpses. Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say? Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?”

As a response, a number of left-wing media outlets, most notably Politico, have drummed up more phony indignation than they’ve ever been able to summon against anything the monstrous Taliban have done to our troops or to innocent Afghans.

Here’s Politico’s Dylan Byers doing his passive-aggressive best to pretend that what Dana said is some kind of scandal or story and get her fired at CNN:

(more…)

The mainstream media’s attempt to sink Sen. Rick Santorum continues.

Via Breitbart.tv, here’s how CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° introduced Santorum to viewers–not by describing his accomplishments or principles, but by branding him–falsely–as a racist religious extremist who hates homosexuals:

(more…)

Time’s Mark Halperin wondered openly this morning whether the mainstream media might be “rooting for” Sen. Rick Santorum in the Republican primary. That could happen if journalists decide that Santorum would be a weaker general election threat to President Barack Obama than the presumed Republican nominee, Gov. Mitt Romney.

But Halperin’s theory is wishful thinking, and obscures one of the most important factors in Santorum’s come-from-nowhere success in the Iowa caucuses last night: the former Pennsylvania senator has thrashed the mainstream media relentlessly in the past few weeks, making it clear he has the courage to stand up to the Democrats’ Greek chorus.

Most recently, Santorum schooled NBC’s David Gregory and CNN’s Candy Crowley on the subject of Obama’s “appeasement” in foreign policy. Santorum showed a patient deftness in drawing a stark contrast with Obama, then defending it with hard facts and fresh, alternative ideas. The journalists, expecting easy prey, were dumbstruck.

Santorum also endured a truly low blow from Alan Colmes, and overcame bizarre attempts by NPR and CBS to cast him as a racist. He irritates the mainstream media, and for good reason–because so far, he is beating them.

In a way, Santorum has picked up where former House speaker Newt Gingrich had left off. Gingrich rose through the polls after targeting the media rather than fellow Republicans. His clashes with Romney knocked Gingrich off that message. Yet Santorum also has discipline and an knock for retail politics. He takes his fight with the media off air and offline. (more…)