National Public Radio led its Morning Edition broadcast this morning with a story about rising gas prices that could have been written by the White House press office. Its basic message was as follows:

1. President Barack Obama feels your pain. Really.
2. Politicians like President Obama can’t do anything about short-term gas prices.
3. We’re producing more domestic oil under Obama–and investing in “domestic energy.”
4. Republicans are making a big deal out of gas prices for political reasons.

Each of these could be true–and each of them is irrelevant to the question of whether President Obama is to blame for the long-term rise in fuel prices during his administration.

The key fact that NPR leaves out is that Obama specifically campaigned on a promise to raise gas prices in 2008 (see video below), and that his administration has done everything possible to raise the cost of fuel over time–from pushing cap-and-trade legislation, to regulating carbon dioxide, to foot-dragging on offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Logan Churchwell:

While some conservative leaning blogs are beginning to grumble that a popular NPR personality is hosting a fundraiser for the Obama campaign this week, POLITICO and other outlets carrying the original Minnesota Public Radio report are only skimming the surface of a long overlooked history of financial support. According to Federal Election Commission reports, NPR host Garrison Keillor has given $170,279 in soft money, political committee and joint fundraising contributions since 2000.

Some favorite contribution targets include:

DNC Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee

11/3/2006 2,500.00

1/25/2001 1,000.00

7/13/2001 1,000.00

10/11/2011 2,000.00

11/16/2011 1,000.00

1/25/2010 10,000.00

7/19/2010 1,000.00

10/27/2000 1,000.00

8/17/2004 500.00

9/1/2004 1,000.00

9/14/2006 5,000.00

10/27/2011 29,000.00

Obama for America

1/16/2008 200.00

5/25/2011 2,000.00

8/4/2011 500.00

8/4/2011 1,500.00

8/13/2008 2,300.00

10/27/2011 1,000.00

(more…)

You would think that an established Web outlet like BuzzFeed, an outlet with a strong following and an appeal that cuts across partisan lines, would’ve wanted to make sure they didn’t alienate a large portion of their readership after jumping into the political arena. But that’s exactly what’s happened. Unfortunately, for those of us who would like to see a major online force engage in objective political reporting, after only a couple of months, BuzzFeed Politics has already evolved into just another left-wing political site disguised as objective.

But that’s probably what BuzzFeed wanted. After all, BuzzFeed hired Ben Smith away from Politico, and anyone who knows anything about Ben Smith knows he’s something of a genius when it comes to undermining the right in order to benefit the left. Moreover, BuzzFeed made Smith Editor-In-Chief of their political coverage and gave him a staff. Which means that the art of BenSmithing is now being practiced on steroids.

So what’s “BenSmithing?” Well, it’s two things. First, it’s doing what most of our journalist class does, and that’s guarding Obama’s palace at all costs. Second, and this is a unique talent of Smith’s (and I say that with admiration), it’s the uncanny ability to create nonsense-narratives meant to disrupt, distract, and bedevil anyone who might be a threat to Obama’s agenda or reelection.

A perfect example of BenSmithing is this piece: “Shopping With The Gingriches.” Think about it; Smith has a limited number of resources at his disposal, but what does he do with them? Well, in this case, he sends one of his reporters out to investigate the shopping habits of Callista and Newt Gingrich.

(more…)

The controversial contraception, abortifacients and sterilization mandate has quickly become a national debate unlike the country has seen since the passage of Obamacare. Regardless of how the White House is currently positioned to accommodate potentially injured religious parties, Accuracy in Media discovered an alarming narrative developing in the mainstream press. Pundits and reporters have chosen to apply the debate to the horse-race for the GOP nomination, or another battle in the culture war for reproductive rights. Unfortunately a larger, constitutionally intrinsic question is being overlooked: will this pending mandate forever endanger our religious liberties for the sake of public policy? Accuracy in Media sat down with Fr. Joseph Gonzales, Imam Johari Abdul-Malik and Rabbi Charles Feinberg to discuss how this precious balance can be maintained in the 21st Century.

(more…)

At the top of his MSNBC show the other day, Chuck Todd was good enough to offer us all a preview of how the corrupt media intends to use the lawless, Obama-endorsed Occupy movement to throw the GOP off message and portray them as hapless and not ready for primetime. 

While you’re watching Todd’s transparent propaganda below, take a moment to think about the obvious: How Todd would’ve reported this had it been Tea Partiers disrupting and glitter-bombing Barack Obama:

—–

So let’s break down what Chuck Todd is intentionally doing to encourage Occupy to disrupt GOP events: 

1. Todd is sending a loud and clear message of approval to Obama-endorsed Occupy thugs: If you successfully disrupt a GOP event, not only will we reward you with media coverage, we’ll start a narrative about how your thuggery proves the GOP challenger isn’t ready for prime-time.

2. Todd is telling Occupy: If you successfully disrupt a GOP event, I’ll be sure to report it with a chyron that reads: “Occupy Protesters Draw Santorum Off Message.”

3. Todd is encouraging Occupy with this message: If you successfully disrupt a GOP event, the only clip I’ll run of the GOP challenger’s message and speech is the one where he’s futilely attempting to speak over you.

(more…)

When I read articles such as these I always think about the villains in Scooby Doo. The Gang removes the monster mask from the perp and underneath, it’s old man Jenkins! And he would’ve gotten away with it, too, were it not for those pesky kids. The same can be said of grassroots, Mitt Romney, and the Romney surrogates in the media. He would have gotten away with it, if it weren’t for those pesky grassroots.

I came across an interesting editorial in the American Thinker; I happen to like the American Thinker and read it often. I just disagree with the premises presented in John Ziegler’s post and wonder at the motivation behind his negativity towards Sarah Palin.

The clearest track to an Obama defeat since the primaries began has always been for Republicans to rally around Mitt Romney and then use his potential appeal to independent voters and unique connections to the key states of New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nevada to effectively block the president’s path to 270 Electoral College votes.

It is now abundantly clear that this scenario is not going to transpire.

Thanks to Romney being forced to expend enormous capital to destroy a candidate (Newt Gingrich) whom the conservative base should have been able to quickly reject on their own by simply engaging in a routine smell test, and that candidate’s ensuing vendetta against Romney and his career in capitalism, the presumed frontrunner has seen his personal ratings take a dive among the very swing voters on which his “electability” argument is based.

Only Romney fans believe in the fantasy of candidate destiny; the rest of us are grounded in the reality of a candidate who can lose five out of nine contests yet still be called “inevitable.” Instead of blaming the grassroots for their refusal to support a moderate candidate in the primary, Romney supporters should redirect their anger towards the candidate who gave these grassroots just cause to doubt him.

Many of us don’t buy the logic that the only way to move the country to a more conservative base is to nominate a moderate candidate. We don’t buy the logic that we should trust a candidate to run the White House in the manner opposite to how he ran his state while in the governor’s mansion.

The presence of other primary candidates is part of the process in our constitutional republic. It’s worrisome, to say the least, that a candidate and his surrogates are complaining about a process they’re simultaneously vowing to support and identifying it as an obstacle to their success. If you think we should coronate candidates as opposed to vetting them and allowing for the will of the people at the polls, there are other countries with governments better suited to such a preference. But that’s not how it works in the United States and we’ve shed a lot of blood to keep it that way.

(more…)

The Washington Post was very excited to report on Feb. 5 that President Obama has finally achieved “the edge” over Mitt Romney in a “general election matchup” poll. The Post was pleased to note Obama was “boosted by improved public confidence” and that he now led Romney by over 50%. Well, he does if you don’t poll actual voters, anyway and therein lies the major problem with the Post’s polling.

The flaw in the Post’s poll is that they seem to have polled “adults” instead of “likely voters” and this fact calls into question the claim in the headline that “Obama holds edge over Romney in general election matchup.” You see, you have to be an actual voter before your opinion in an “election matchup” much matters but the Post apparently did not make sure that its respondents were actual voters before declaring that Obama is now winning over more voters.

But the bigger problem is the fact that the Post has decided it no longer needs to include the partisan breakdown of its respondents for readers to assess. The Post did not include the percentages of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in its polling data so there is no way to know if the poll included a fair representation of all parties or if the whole poll was weighted heavy with Democrats.

The Post has had troubling polls before. Ed Morrissey notes for instance that a WaPo poll from April of 2011 had 22% Republicans overpowered by 33% Democrats and 38% purported independents. If the Post is shorting Republican representation, no wonder the Obamessiah seems to be surging!

By excluding in reports its partisan breakdown, the Post risks having its results easily dismissed by serious readers. It makes the poll practically worthless. Of course, the problem is that the average reader won’t realize that things are askew with the polling and will accept the claims of Obama’s popularity at face value. But maybe that’s why the Post won’t include its partisan breakdown in its reports? As Morrissey says, “it’s easy to assume that the reason that the Post has ended its sample transparency is because they have something to hide.”

(more…)

Now that the Super Bowl is over, there’s the usual selective outrage arguing that ‘this or that ad is racist.’ Last year, it was the Tibetans and GroupOn; this year, it is the Chinese and Pete Hoekstra’s bid for the U.S. Senate.The Democrats sense their opportunity to get the very unpopular Debbie Stabenow re-elected and turn Hoekstra’s ad into a Macaca moment.

Predictably the media is already in overdrive. “Ad Draws Protests for Portrayal of Asians,” was the headline for The New York Times article. Lawrence O’Donnell has even attacked the Asian-American girl who dared to appear in the ad, going so far as to compare her decision to play the part of a Chinese villager to a decision a friend of his made not to play Hitler’s daughter. Naturally, the squishy GOP consultants are upset, too, according to Politico. Talking Points Memo went into convulsions when discovering that the Asian girl wearing the yellow shirt was called “yellowgirl” in the html code on Hoekstra’s website.

But Hoekstra is defending himself.

Only to have Rep. Judy Chu of California call the ad “violent and hateful” and blame Bush for the economic downturn on CNN.

(more…)

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…)

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the Obama Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder is not just politicized and biased – it’s a hit squad for Obama’s enemies.

Remember when President Obama’s Department of Justice shut down investigation of the New Black Panther Party in the aftermath of their taped voter intimidation in 2008?  J. Christian Adams, author of the book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department and former DOJ attorney, exposed the DOJ’s corruption in dropping the case altogether.  Or how about when the DOJ stonewalled investigations into Fast and Furious, the gunwalking operation that ended with weapons in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels – weapons used to kill American citizens?

Well, the DOJ is on the warpath again.  Not against the New Black Panthers or the Mexican drug cartels – against Rupert Murdoch.  According to Reuters, “U.S. authorities are stepping up investigations, including an FBI criminal inquiry, into possible violations by employees of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire of a U.S. law banning corrupt payments to foreign officials such as police, law enforcement and corporate sources said.”  What’s the evidence on which they’re basing the investigation?  Says Reuters, “U.S. investigators have found little to substantiate allegations of phone hacking inside the United States by Murdoch journalists, the sources added.”

So why, then, is the DOJ so intent on finding wrongdoing about Murdoch?  It couldn’t have something to do with Murdoch’s ownership of Fox News – the same network the Obama White House tried to exclude from inside administration interviews, according to papers uncovered by Judicial Watch – could it? (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…)

Here’s something that no one is talking about concerning tonight’s primaries: In my homestate of Missouri Prop C, the first legislative challenge to Obamacare exempting Missourians from Obamacare penalities, passed by 3-1 in every single county except Kansas City and St. Louis City. Rick Santorum took every single county in Missouri. Missourians don’t like mandates. Missourians, like folks from MN and CO, don’t like being strong-armed into the falsehood of “electable inevitability.”

That’s what we’ve been sold for the past six months. Tonight inevitability was rejected in three states.

Numerous talking heads discounted the “beauty contests,” especially Missouri’s, which holds a separate caucus for its 52 delegates in March due to state-level silliness. Coincidentally, these are the same folks, Karl Rove and Company, who seem to save their most favorable comments for Romney. Iowa was important until it was realized Santorum won. South Carolina didn’t matter because hey, they were all bigots and hillbillies. Only the states that went Romney seemed to count.

(more…)

We’re having tea with the Mad Hatter.

If you look a little closer at the debate over the Obama administration’s betrayal of the Catholic Church, you’ll see that we’ve already lost.  Obama and his media allies have effectively shifted the argument away from the grounds upon which it should take place and on to grounds we never thought possible. Rather than debating the outrageous overreach of the government demanding insurance companies pay for birth control, we’re instead debating whether the Catholic Church should be required to do so. 

It’s all smoke and mirrors, isn’t it? We’re so busy arguing over the outrage of the White House forcing Catholic-run schools and social service outlets to provide birth control and the morning-after pills to their employees, that the very idea of forcing  private insurance companies to do the same, sounds perfectly reasonable. It’s a genius sleight-of-hand meant to have us look over there instead of over here.

Moreover, if you’ve watched the MSM coverage, you can see that the Constitution and Bill of Rights means nothing to our media overlords. Here we have the federal government violating the fundamental right upon which this country was founded — Freedom of Religion — and yet the media is taking seriously that a valid counter-argument is a woman’s non-existent right to free birth control.

Do you see the words “birth” or “control” anywhere in here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And yet, all day I’ve had to read and listen to the media take seriously access to free birth control as some sort of competing right.  

(more…)

Reuters:

U.S. authorities are stepping up investigations, including an FBI criminal inquiry, into possible violations by employees of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire of a U.S. law banning corrupt payments to foreign officials such as police, law enforcement and corporate sources said.

But U.S. investigators have found little to substantiate allegations of phone hacking inside the United States by Murdoch journalists, the sources added.

The FBI is conducting an investigation into possible criminal violations by Murdoch employees of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a law intended to curb payment of bribes by U.S. companies to foreign officials, a U.S. law enforcement official said.

The U.S. official said that if any law enforcement action was pursued by U.S. authorities against Murdoch employees, it would most likely relate to FCPA.

If it is found to have violated the FCPA, Murdoch’s News Corp, which has its headquarters in New York, could be fined up to $2 million and barred from U.S. government contracts, and individuals who participated in the bribery could face fines of up to $100,000 and a jail sentence of five years.

(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…)

Oops. My headline mistakenly reads “cracker” journalism.

What I meant to write was ”crack” journalism – but in a completely sarcastic way.

At the top of Politico’s front page today sits a major spread on race and its cynical use in the presidential election. The co-authors claim that their inspiration came from (a week late) Arizona Governor Jan Brewer being called a bigot for daring to wag her finger at President Obama — something the media described as Speaking! Truth! To! Power! when Bush was in office.

Predictably, the article doesn’t hold the media accountable for blowing up, digging up, and focusing on bogus claims of racism, and just as predictably, the article doesn’t bother to mention Politico’s own racial scandal that blew up after their own Jonathan — He Who Investigates Private Citizens on Behalf Of His Precious One – Martin casually tossed off the slur “cracker” on a national cable channel last week.

I guess this is Politico’s transparently desperate way of pretending that neither they nor the rest of the MSM have anything to do with creating and/or fanning the flames of these phony racial firestorms, even though the media is usually the one holding the match.  The reason Politico wants to pretend the MSM isn’t the number one generator of this stuff is obvious. They want to report and create it but take no responsibility for it. This is how they fashion that artificial shield of objectivity for themselves even as they lead this partisan crusade.

It’s just a fact that both the Democrats and their MSM allies use these trumped-up racial charges as a way to distract from Obama’s failures, scandals, and issues that matter, like jobs and the deficit. By CONSTANTLY creating racism where none exists — food stamps, finger-wagging, basketball, Juan — the MSM also keeps the narrative alive that the right is racist which, in turn, keeps us on defense. After all, when we’re on defense, we’re not getting our message out.

As we’ve documented here, Politico isn’t simply reporting on this cynical game of racial gotcha; they are playing, contributing, and amplifying it.

(more…)

A recent article by Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic entitled “Why Mitt’s Wealth Matters: It’s Policy, Not Envy” offers a meme that surely will be one line of Democrat attack against Mitt Romney should he happen to win the GOP nomination. Mr. Cohn’s article focuses on a speech that President Obama recently gave at the University of Michigan promoting his program for making college more affordable. What I found fascinating was Cohn’s argument echoing Obama’s not so subtle hint that because of Mitt Romney’s wealthy upbringing, and thus his never needing a student loan, he has no “standing,” for lack of a better term, to be targeting the student loan program for cuts as a part of his total package for reducing discretionary federal spending.

Says Cohn:

“Romney also benefited from the lottery of life – among other things, by being born into a family that could afford to provide him with the very best education at every step of the way. He seems unaware of that fact and the possibility that others, born into less fortunate circumstances, might need some of the government programs he’s promised to undermine.”

In other words, because of Romney’s wealth, he simply does not understand the needs of those who use government assistance. So what is Cohn’s argument, then? That only those who had a hardscrabble upbringing need apply for the presidency?

For a columnist who clearly is in the Democratic camp to offer such a notion is utter hypocrisy. In 2004, the “party of the little guy” offered up as their standard-bearer Senator John Kerry, who was at the time the richest man in Congress. Not only was Kerry fabulously wealthy (~$500+ million net worth), but he didn’t even earn it! He married it. Add to this Kerry’s coiffed and grinning side-kick John Edwards was a sleazy trial lawyer who amassed his own pile of tens of millions by bankrupting obstetricians using junk science, and you hardly have a representation of the 99%. So how come in 2004 the Democrats felt that immense wealth didn’t matter, yet now suddenly it is a legitimate issue? (more…)

I take no pleasure in the misery of others, but as someone who recognizes that the mainstream media is the arch-villain in the fight for human liberty and the survival of an America that doesn’t resemble a European socialist country – yesterday, it was impossible for my heart to do anything other than leap for joy when I read that the New York Times lost $40 million in 2011.

No one wants to see anyone lose their job, but the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and all the rest are nothing more than lairs for arch-villains, and when these hollowed-out volcanoes are bankrupted, the virtue of this outweighs what happens to the faceless henchmen who are now out on the streets looking for work. I wish them luck. I wish things were different. But this is about saving our country and humanity.

Over in England, some are openly panicking over the future of newspapers:

So if I understand how this works, we currently live in a media world where “Juan” is racist, where “food stamps” is racist, where pointing out that a president who enjoys basketball enjoys basketball is racist. But “cracker“? Why, that’s not improper in the least.

—–

Well, I guess it’s okay to use the slur “cracker” for the for the same reason it’s okay to use the N-word. Some in the black community use the N-word and some in Florida use the word “cracker.”

Oh, wait; it’s not okay to use the N-word.

Anyway, what does logic have to do with the mainstream media justifying and rationalizing anything they do? But justify and rationalize Jonathan Martin did when he called in to Newsbusters to justify and rationalize his use of the word “cracker.”

You can read the whole thing here, but this is my all-time favorite part:

Let’s face it, you were on MSNBC where virtually every criticism of Barack Obama they report as being somehow racist.”

“Totally agree that there is now a culture in the sort of political media universe on both sides where there is this sort of outrage industry that has been created where both sides monitor the other and try to find examples of offensive comments that can be seized upon and stirred up entirely for political gain where you have this, again, faux indignation, but it’s really just posing as indignation,” he said. “It’s all about political point scoring, and I think it absolutely takes place now on both sides.”

(more…)

Senator Marco Rubio is a bona fide political star able to communicate his ideas and vision with an eloquence few can match. He’s also Hispanic and a Republican, which freaks the left out — and by “left,” I of course mean the mainstream media.

The media’s biggest fear is Obama losing his upcoming reelection, and Rubio is the kind of VP candidate that keeps the corrupt MSM up at night. Not only could he help swing the all-important Hispanic vote into GOP territory; he also hails from the all-important swing state of Florida.

The nightmare scenario for Obama’s MSM Palace Guards is this attractive, articulate young man taking it to Obama on the campaign trail while wrapped in the mantle of history as the very first Hispanic nominated as vice president.

Unfortunately, the MSM is corrupt but not dumb, which is why over the last few months we’ve seen two major pushes from two major news outlets to discredit, toxify, and marginalize Rubio. Oh, and both of those stories were riddled with factual errors that we’re assured were nothing more than honest mistakes.

The first hit came from The Washington Post back in October. Their information was so blatantly wrong that early one Saturday morning I caught them red-handed quietly scrubbing away their mistakes from the hit piece. This is what I wrote at the time:

(more…)