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…)
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.
Yesterday, Juan Williams of Fox News doubled down on his accusation that Republican presidential candidates are using “racial code words.”
Today, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic has followed suit with an article rehashing the tired allegation that Republicans are using so-called “dog whistle” tactics–“the use of coded, ambiguous language to appeal to the prejudices of certain subsets of voters”–i.e. white voters (Democrats’ use of race to appeal to the prejudices and fears of black voters is rarely subject to scrutiny.)
Jeffrey Goldberg (Photo: Bloomberg News)
Goldberg says that the Obama’s Republican opponents have alleged the following (original links, including one to Media Matters–itself the subject of serious charges of antisemitism–included):
Black people have lost the desire to perform a day’s work. Black people rely on food stamps provided to them by white taxpayers. Black people, including Barack and Michelle Obama, believe that the U.S. owes them something because they are black. Black children should work as janitors in their high schools as a way to keep them from becoming pimps. And the pathologies afflicting black Americans are caused partly by the Democratic Party, which has created in them a dependency on government not dissimilar to the forced dependency of slaves on their owners.
I’ll go even further, and admit that I personally heard a presidential candidate give a speech–in a church, no less–in which he blasted the black community, and black men in particular, for the phenomenon of single-parent households; who noted that black children with absent fathers have a greater chance of becoming criminals; who scolded black parents, “don’t just sit in the house and watch ‘Sports Center’ all weekend long”; and who told blacks to “read a book once in awhile.”
“It’s almost as laughable as accusing Fox News as being … news!”
The Fox News segment Kermit and Miss Piggy are responding to (in the video below) can be watched here, and you can see it’s a rather innocuous and perfectly valid discussion about the culture. As a response, and nearly a week after the segment aired, the Fox-hating entertainment media (which is all of them) viralized the clip, blew the controversy up into something it really wasn’t, and did so because they find it impossible to turn down an opportunity to prove they’re one of the minions in the club.
What effectively happened, though, is a week-old Fox Business segment was consequently amplified into the news narrative, which turned the new Muppet film into a political and partisan football. Only our wildly out-of-touch entertainment media minions would think this is a good thing, and as a consequence, a well-reviewed film that opened above expectations entered the divisive culture and political wars and didn’t do anywhere near as well at the box office as some had expected and hoped.
That, however, wasn’t the fault of the Muppets.That was the immature, clubby entertainment media. The video below, though, puts the Muppets themselves into this controversy, which will only further alienate a very large segment of their audience:
Today, on Fox News Channel’s The Five, liberal panelist Bob Beckel praised President Barack Obama’s efforts at job creation: “One good sign of the economy is there are more manufacturing jobs created in the last two years than the last eight,” he said.
Beckel did acknowledge that American manufacturing was still in a bad state, and lamented that the manufacturing sector “has been bleeding jobs because corporations are going to find cheap labor overseas.”
His conservative colleague, Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros, interjected: “So cut the corporate tax.” Fellow conservative Eric Bolling backed her up–”A hundred percent right, Andrea!”–and added that U.S. corporations pay the highest tax rates in the industrialized world, after Japan recently lowered its rate.
Beckel, on the defensive, retorted: “As much as Botswana?”
Tantaros and Bolling didn’t know what to say, and appeared to concede the point: “Botswana? Botswana is the bar? Botswana?” Tantaros protested. “That was a joke,” Beckel reassured her.
It must have been a joke–because, in fact, Botswana does have a far lower corporate tax rate than the U.S., which has helped propel Botswana to rapid and sustained economic growth. (more…)
Sitting at the bar in Paolo’s Restaurant at 92nd Street and Madison Avenue in Manhattan Saturday afternoon, December 10th, I was shocked by the tone the conversation with my old ABC News colleague Lowell Bergman had taken. He was heading to London and had urgently requested that we get together before his afternoon flight from JFK.
Bergman
I remembered Lowell as a brave, competent, but hugely self-righteous old school investigative reporter, who famously produced the Mike Wallace expose of the major tobacco companies for ’60 Minutes.’ Al Pacino played him in the movie version of the saga, ‘The Insider.’
Although I hadn’t seen the now 60-year old veteran reporter since he parted ways with ABC back in 1982, I recognized him immediately. …
He explained that his investigative reporting program at Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, in association with reporters from ProPublica are probing our corporate parent, News Corp’s U.S. properties; specifically the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.
Alan Colmes earlier today made a despicable remark about how the Santorum family grieved over their child, a remark for which he had to later apologize.
Colmes faced off with National Review editor Rich Lowry, who responded to a question on whether or not undecided voters will truly stick by Santorum when it’s time to cast a vote. Colmes answered, saying that his rising support will stop short once people “get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after child birth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real.”
Lowry cut off Colmes, calling the statement “a cheap shot.”
“To take something that is that personal and that hurtful as losing a child and mocking it like that … that is beneath you, Alan,” he said. “What you’re saying is contemptible.”
It was more than a cheap shot, it was using someone else’s tragedy to make a political point. The flippant way he described taking baby Gabriel home was an attempt to make light of a horrific time for the Santorum family. They did not take the child home to ”play with him” but because they felt before they sent him to his eternal resting place he should become a “real human being” to his siblings.
He and his wife, Karen, have seven children – including, as Santorum puts it, “the one in Heaven.” Their fourth baby, Gabriel Michael, died in 1996, two hours after an emergency delivery in Karen Santorum’s 20th week of pregnancy. The couple took Gabriel’s body home to let their three other young children see and hold the baby before burying him, according to Karen Santorum’s book of the ordeal, “Letters to Gabriel.”
Santorum’s wife described the aftermath to Gabriel’s death in a heart breaking way.
Gabriel Michael Santorum was born at 12:45 AM on Friday, October 11, 1996. He was a beautiful boy. He did not give a cry or open his tiny eyes. We baptized him, bundled him, and held him ever so close. We sang to him, held his little hands and kissed him. Gabriel lived for two hours. In those two hours something simple but profound happened. Rick and I became parents to a newborn baby and welcomed him into our family. That was all….but it was everything. His life was so brief, yet his impact so great. In two hours we experienced a lifetime of emotions. Love, sorrow, regret, joy—-all were packed into that brief span. To have rejected that experience would have been to reject life itself.
I pray that Colmes never has to face the pain of losing a child to learn what he would do in the face of such a horrible tragedy. He has no right to make light of the pain of others.
Then again, this is the same Alan Colmes who accused Sarah Palin of causing her son’s Downs Syndrome. via Prenatal neglect Not only does that belay genetics at the time it was the most disgusting thing I have ever heard from a liberal commentator. But today Colmes topped himself.
Apparently even Colmes realized he went too far. Santorum appeared on Hannity later in the day and said Colmes apologized.
Ever since it was learned a Saudi Prince, Alwaleed Bin Talal, owned a large stake in News Corp – parent company to Fox News – the usual suspects (ThinkProgress, Media Matters, DailyKos) have been trying to use it as a way to “hurt” Fox News (the prince now owns roughly 7% of News Corp.) The flawed thinking goes like this: “ZOMG! Fox News is owned by a Muslim, but Fox viewers are mostly conservative, therefore racist and anti-Muslim, and shouldn’t be watching Fox News!!” Clearly, in order to make sense of the smear merchants’s narrative, one must believe that all Fox News viewers are racist and anti-Muslim. This is a classic strawman argument: create a false premise and then use it to “prove” a point about your opponent.
This is Alwaleed Bin Talal. Really.
Media Matters, in particular, has been beating the “Fox News is anti-Muslim, but it’s owned by a Saudi Prince” drum the loudest. Have some fun and go over to the tax-exempt 501(c)(3)’s website and search “Fox Saudi Prince” or “Alwaleed” and you’ll find pages of posts by Senior and Junior Fellows pretending to be amazed that conservatives watch Fox News even though it is partly owned by a Saudi Prince. It never once occurs to them that people who watch Fox News realize the network isn’t anti-Muslim (Okay, that’s not true. The propagandists at Media Matters, etc. know it, but their job is to promote the narrative. They lie for a living).
An unintended consequence of this silly narrative is that the rank and file leftists out there have taken this “information” and used it to let their inner fascist shine through. The smear merchants’ narrative has provided the cover for them. Now they’re free to play the guilt by association game to anyone who doesn’t virulently hate Fox News as much as they do. If you spend any time on social networks or message boards or the comments section of articles and blog posts, you’ve seen the comment: “Oh yeah? Well Fox is owned by a Saudi Muslim!! HA!” If you bother to engage a person like this, they will inevitably come around to citing the Saudi regime’s backward stances on human rights, especially towards women, and a host of other issues. To be fair, these are all valid criticisms, but they’re using them for the completely wrong reasons. They’re trying to silence Fox News. (more…)
I’m not happy. Operation Fast and Furious was finally brought up in a debate, but it received one question and two responses. Growing up my mother told me to either go all the way with something or don’t bother with it because sometimes going half-way is worse than not doing anything at all. This is one of those cases. I don’t blame the media for ignoring the ONE question with TWO responses on Fast and Furious. If the moderators asked Speaker Gingrich or Governor Romney maybe the media would have given it a shout out.
I couldn’t find it anywhere in The New York Times. I found a part of the Fast and Furious segment in the Fact Check article at The Washinton Post. They didn’t mention that this Rick Perry quote came from his answer on the Fast and Furious question.
“Venezuela has the largest Iranian embassy in the world there.”
— Rick Perry
This is a dubious statement, especially since Iran has much deeper interests in countries closer to Tehran, such as Iraq and Syria. The extent of Iranian influence in Latin America is often overstated. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was embarrassed in 2009 when it turned out her claim that Iran was building a mega-embassy in Nicaragua was untrue.
The rest of the articles at the Post didn’t mention Fast and Furious. There’s a blog post at MSNBC about Rick Perry, but it doesn’t mention his response to Fast and Furious. Matthew Boyle and Katie Pavlich wrote about it.
But I fault Fox News on this more than the rest of the media. Operation Fast and Furious deserved the attention gay marriage and abortion received if not more. So many people on Twitter were demanding questions be asked that Fast and Furious was even trending on Twitter.
Glenn Beck suggests that Newt Gingrich is so “progressive” that only racism could explain why the tea party would support him over President Obama. He is alluding to Gingrich’s praise of Theodore Roosevelt. But the “progressive” outlook of Republican Theodore Roosevelt (TR) was much different than the Progressive Party of Henry Wallace, who served as Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president. TR opposed socialism and communism.
During an appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Fox Business Channel program, Beck said about Gingrich:
“This man is a progressive. He knows he’s a progressive. He doesn’t have a problem with being a progressive. So if you’ve got a big government progressive [in Gingrich] or a big government progressive in Obama, one in Newt Gingrich, one in Obama, ask yourself this tea party. Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race.”
With this comment, Beck is claiming that the policies of Gingrich and Obama are the same or at least very similar. However, in his interview with Beck, Gingrich made the point that he believes government has a role in maintaining some “minimum regulatory standards of public health and safety.” He also said government programs have to be reformed to maximize individual choice and that some federal subsidies, such as those which bolster a domestic oil and gas industry, are defensible. None of this qualifies as Obama-style socialism.
Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax noted in his article, “Glenn Beck Should Revere Theodore Roosevelt,” that “The policies advocated by TR were not those of some social engineer who wanted to remake the United States based on a Saul Alinsky radical model.”
Beck notes that Theodore Roosevelt started the Progressive Party, but this is not the same Progressive Party, dominated by the Communists, that nominated Henry Wallace for president in 1948 and which continues to influence the Democratic Party today. (more…)
David Frum on CNN’s Reliable Sources: “People Who Watch A Lot Of Fox Come Away Knowing A Lot Less”
Media Matters touts the sensational headline above without a video link, embed, or download of the source material in any way. Not only is the quote inaccurate because it’s incomplete, but it likely stems from a weak survey first pushed by MMfA. They also neglect to inform their readers that Howard Kurtz called out Frum for his reckless statement in this very segment of “Reliable Sources.” This is how propaganda is made, thus making MMfAgulity of the very charge it dishonestly levels at Fox News.
NewsBusters has the complete video with a transcript. It’s also worth a closer look, as the “world events” could easily involve Egypt and Syria because of a previous survey also pushed by MMfA. In essence, Frum may have regurgitated some earlier MMfA propaganda, which they then recycled yet one more time, creating a disingenuous feedback loop purely to bash Fox News. More importantly, Frum was being just as critical of liberal outlets such as MMfA, and Kurtz admits that media outlets are, indeed, biased toward the left. Media Matters simply omitted that, as it isn’t what they wanted their readers to know. (more…)
Why did you want to go from the top of the men’s magazine world to Fox News?
I loved Fox News. I’d been on a couple of times, and I found it refreshing. Before Fox News, what was there? There was this terrible sameness — all the same faces with the same assumptions about America’s place in the world. The news was deliberately obscuring another perspective, and it was one that reflected reality in my mind and who I was, and the gap between what was real and what was on the news, I thought, was huge. And FNC at least for me filled that gap.
What do you have to say to critics of Fox News who regard it as a tool of the right wing?
I always love questions like that, because no one ever says, “I don’t like Fox News.” They say, “What do you say to the critics?” In the old days, major media was outrageously liberal, but they owned all the players on the teams, they owned the ball, they owned the stadium. And when Fox News shows up to play, everyone else wants to take the ball and go home. You hear nothing but whining about Fox News because they’re kicking everybody’s butt. And I love that. The people who whine about Fox News are hypocrites — they say they’re totally tolerant, but when they run into someone who doesn’t share their assumptions, they say, “Fox News is evil, and it must be stopped.”
Rather than being victims of police brutality, a new video shows that Occupiers at UC Davis knew they were going to be pepper sprayed and didn’t mind it. Indeed, the new video evidence indicates that the entire confrontation with the police was staged for the benefit of the media, which took the bait and ran with it, making police out to be cruel and heartless villains. The new video evidence demonstrates that the police had not only warned the protesters in advance about what was going to happen but one demonstrator says to the police, “You’re shooting us?” and, after getting an affirmative answer, replies, “That’s fine.” Another tells her comrades, “Keep your eyes closed.” Several are seen covering their faces.
Despite misleading stories about the “peaceful protest” at UC Davis, the campus police had been ordered by Chancellor Linda Katehi to remove the protesters using pepper spray, determined to be the best way to do so without causing long-lasting physical injuries, because they had erected an illegal tent city on campus and were blocking a sidewalk. The police could have used batons, like they did during an earlier confrontation at UC Berkeley, but that was ruled out by the UC Davis campus police chief. The video shows the police holding and shaking the pepper spray canisters during a time period of several minutes. They gave the protesters more than enough time to disperse.
On his NBC Nightly News broadcast, NBC’s Brian Williams had called the lawbreakers “kids” and implied that parents should be outraged over their treatment. There is no evidence, however, that these “kids” being sprayed on the sidewalk were all students. Chancellor Katehi said in a statement that non-students had been active on campus and part of the protests. Indeed, these non-students were undoubtedly the organizers of the affair.
As Brian Williams should know, since he claims to be so concerned about parents and their “kids” on campus, safety is a top priority because of the ability of outsiders to enter the grounds and threaten or assault students. Crime on campus is a major issue for parents and young people looking for a safe educational environment. Under these circumstances, it would have been utter dereliction of duty for any college or university president to condone what the Occupiers were doing at UC Davis. That is why Katehi ordered the tent city dismantled and the protesters evicted.
Despite the numerous stories about alleged police brutality, which have led to putting the campus police chief and two officers on leave, there is no evidence the police did anything wrong. The operations plan used by UC Davis included the use of pepper spray. The police followed acceptable procedures.
The public should be quickly educated by the media about what is really going on here. The so-called Occupy movement, underway for several months now, is based on seizing public and private property. Since the public has demanded that the protesters be evicted from these spaces, and many mayors are ordering the police to do so, the leaders have decided to move on to college campuses. UC Berkeley and UC Davis were some of the first targets.
The effort to discredit the police is an old Marxist tactic, designed to lay the groundwork for larger mob actions. Congressional investigations were held in the 1960s into how communists foment riots and disturbances. The aim is to demonize and then paralyze the police. Since members of the Democratic Socialists of America have discussed plans to take over city halls and state capitals in the next several months, we can see that the stakes are rising as the Occupy movement gets more violent and confrontational over time. This is the time to support the police, not undermine their ability to preserve law and order.
It’s Thursday. You know what that means don’t you? Another university “study” that proves that viewers of Fox News are uninformed boobs. This time it’s out of Farleigh-Dickinson University in New Jersey. Their shocking claim is “watching Fox News makes you less informed than watching nothing at all.”
Their telephone poll of 612 New Jersey adults purportedly shows that the Fox News watching people don’t know the right answer to a few questions the pollsters asked. That is to say, the right answers according to the pollsters.
The first question is about Egypt and whether or not the protests have been successful in bringing down the regime there. The expected answer is, of course, yes. Only 49% of FNC watchers responded “correctly” while 68% of NPR listeners did.
So, did the protesters in Tahrir Square bring down the regime? I guess that depends on how you define “the regime.” Following three weeks of protests, President Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down and his National Democratic Party (NDP) was dissolved. It was at this point that the Armed Forces of Egypt officially took control. So, why is this ambiguous in any way? Well, Mubarak and the entire upper echelon of the NDP were military. As a matter of fact, the Egyptian military have been the de facto rulers of Egypt since the military coup of 1952 that ousted King Farouk and ushered in the Nassar regime. So, the only real change in Egypt was cosmetic.
In addition, it wouldn’t be too far off to say that, of all the coverage of the “Arab Spring,” one of the few news outlets that was not reflexively cheerleading it was Fox News. Outside of the first few days of heady enthusiasm, where it all appeared to be a spontaneous push for freedom and democracy, it has become clear that many of the Arab nations that have removed their previous autocratic leaders have not been moving in a positive direction. There is a troubling move from Communist/Socialist autocrats towards Islamist autocrats. Needless to say, there has been no real change in the leadership of Egypt with the exception of getting rid of Hosni Mubarak.
The second question was whether or not the opposition in Syria has been able to bring down the regime there. Amongst those giving the wrong answer, there was no statistical difference. All people answering, grouped by primary news source, came within 4% of each other. When the reported margin of error is 3.5%, you have no real grounds making claims that one group is getting it wrong. That is, unless you’re now looking not at who answered incorrectly, but at who answered that he didn’t know. The coverage of what has been going on in Syria has been spotty at best. For someone to answer that they don’t know is not an incorrect answer, it just means that they admit to not being having an informed opinion.
Monday night’s episode of The O’Reilly Factor, the number one show in cable news, features an unusual collaboration between FOX and CBS as Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes joins Throw Them All Out author and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer to discuss insider trading in Congress.
In less than a week, Schweizer’s book–which documents suspicious trades by members and leaders of both parties has upended Washington, DC, prompting hearings to be scheduled in both the Senate and House and shining public scrutiny on a previously hidden avenue of potential corruption and political self-enrichment.
The talk show hosted by Greg Gutfeld averaged the largest audience in its five-year history (446,000) as well as 177,000 in adults 25-54. In the demo, it edged Piers Morgan (176,000) at 9 PM as well as a slew of other cable news programs in way more trafficked time slots: CNN’s Erin Burnett Outfront (146,000) at 7 PM, MSNBC’s Morning Joe (141,000) from 6-9 AM, MSNBC’s Hardball With Chris Matthews (163,000) at 5 PM and 7 PM, HLN’s Nancy Grace (157,000) at 8 PM, and CNN’s John King USA (121,000) at 6 PM.
When does a columnist write something so utterly absurd that his credibility is forever damaged? I am not sure how to answer that in general terms, but I think at least one journalist answered the question for his own, now-thoroughly destroyed veracity. Jonathan Alter of Bloomberg has written one of the most ridiculous, least reality-based assessments yet of Barack Obama’s short White House tenure.
In his Bloomberg piece Alter claimed that Obama is “honest” and falsely asserted that his White House has been “free of scandal.” In fact, some of the incidents that Alter himself notes, and immediately dismisses, carry at least a whiff of scandal — if not untruthfulness.
Naturally, Alter ignores far more than he reports on Obama scandals but he also misses the biggest reason why Obama seems to him to have a scandal free presidency. The Media refuses to call anything Obama does a scandal!
After all, if you have a guy that wantonly lies, that double deals, that hides facts, that also allows subordinates to lie and that fellow is allowed to just get away with it without repercussion from journalists, I guess that makes for a “scandal free” guy, eh?
Alter’s first attempt to give succor to Obama’s failing presidency comes with a baseless swipe at “the whole” Republican Party.
The sight of Texas Governor Rick Perry tumbling out of the clown car recently as a “birther” (or at least a birther- enabler) is a sign of weakness, not just for the Perry campaign but for the whole Republican effort to tarnish the president’s character.
This is a false premise. It assumes that “the whole” Republican Party is using birtherism to “tarnish the president’s character.” This is a flat out untruth. Only a small portion of the center right polity in America has any interest in Obama’s birth certificate. Alter’s attempt to make the whole of the GOP into birthers is simply baseless.
Next, Alter dismisses the Solyndra scandal as meaningless. I guess if you don’t think its a touch scandalous when you have millions upon millions of tax dollars going into the pockets of buddies who turn around and go bankrupt almost immediately, well, what can you say to that?
Alter also dismisses both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s tax evasion and Obama’s firing of Ag. Dept. official Shirley Sherrod without knowing what she really did. Then Alter makes the silly claim that Obama’s stimulus spending was free of any waste or abuse — the latter claim is laughable on its face. Have you ever heard of a government spending program that had no waste at all?
Reporters quoting critics in presidential pressers is as old as presidential pressers. A smart president would seize the moment as an opportunity to respond to their critics. But Obama isn’t the brightest light in the chandelier and isn’t used to the press not being a spokesperson for him.
Hilarious. After shouting down Fox News’s Geraldo at the Jazz Hands and Bongos Festival, protesters, for the lack of a more nuanced term, go a’ famewhoring.
I remember Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez because of the MSM. I couldn’t go a day without seeing him as the main story on the front page of CNN, MSNBC, and hearing all about the illegal dismissal of US attorneys. It was everywhere. You’d think this scandal was linked to the death of an ATF agent.
I went on the websites for CNN, FOX News, CBS News, New York Times, and ABC News (MSNBC & NBC didn’t give me results past 2011) and searched “Alberto Gonzalez.” Click on the links and you’ll see the many hits that came up! The MSM was all over this story. Seven US attorneys were fired on December 7, 2006 without much explanation. Some may have been fired to influence ongoing political corruption or any voter fraud investigations mainly for not going after investigations that could harm Democrat politicians. Mr. Gonzalez always made himself available to answer questions and turned over every single document he could. No wrong doing was found. But Democrats were going full force at him, demanding his resignation or firing. He finally resigned along with others over this scandal. Was Mr. Gonzalez innocent? Maybe, maybe not, but at least his controversies didn’t result in the death of an ATF agent in Mexico.
Rest In Peace Agent Brian Terry
This leads us to Attorney General Eric Holder. I would think with the way the MSM handled Mr. Gonzalez they would be all over Mr. Holder. I’m sadly disappointed. Actually the only person who talks about Fast and Furious on a regular basis is Cam Edwards, host of Cam & Company at NRA News. Sharyl Attkisson at CBS cares about Fast & Furious, too, and Lord knows she is not being received well. We must also give credit to Matthew Boyle at Daily Caller and Katy Pavlich at Townhall.
A few days ago a smoking gun was released by the White House. Documents are now released that Mr. Holder was being briefed about Fast & Furious July 2010. Ms. Attkisson reported this at CBS News October 3rd at 5:59PM. Mr. Boyle quickly followed at 6:49PM. There’s no time stamp on the article at FOX News, but I know it appeared last night before 10PM.
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...
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?