Morons. Complete and stupid morons. Did they ever bother to do some fact checking? The link leads to audio of Dana’s show last Friday. She explained how women can know when they ovulate. MMfA obviously doesn’t believe her.

Let me tell you something MMfA. I and millions of other women use our cycles as a way to not get pregnant. I also use it to get pregnant. It’s called Natural Family Planning. Here’s a little education for you: I wake up at the same time every day to take my temperature with a basal body temperature thermometer. Watching your temps allows you to know when you ovulate. A few spikes in temps followed by a huge spike tells you that you ovulated. There’s also these simple things called ovulation tests!

So again why are you tax exempt when you constantly FAIL? I thought it was your job to fact check the media. Before you call out someone maybe, just maybe, you should do some investigating and make sure this person is 100% false. Otherwise you come out looking like fools you are. Next time, do some research.

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.”

And with quotes from the Post story like, “Overall, 55 percent of those who are closely following the campaign say they disapprove of what the GOP candidates have been saying,” one has to wonder if those respondents scoffing at the Republican message were actual voters that the GOP should pay attention to, or partisan Democrats whom they won’t be able to reach anyway, or even disinterested “adults” that aren’t voting in the first place? Unfortunately, with this poll we have no way to assess the answers to those questions.

Still, the Post assures us that, “Meanwhile, the president’s recent remarks are better reviewed.” How do we know? Well, we don’t. We just have to take the Post’s word for it if we are going to believe it.

Essentially, what we have with these Washington Post polls is simple cheerleading for the president instead of legitimate analysis of the current sentiments of voters.

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.

They apparently haven’t met my Asian friends who found the ad, well, funny in its satire. I know this because I showed it to a bunch of young Chinese-Americans in the bobba shop where I work and asked them what they thought. “Sure, it’s offensive, but not worth getting upset over,” said one.  ”Who is Debbie Spend-it-now? Is that really her name?” asked another and these are the supposedly upset Asian-Americans in her very congressional district.

As someone studying Chinese, who lives in a majority Chinese neighborhood and who is in love with an American woman of Chinese-Indonesian ancestry, I personally think that the ad is in poor taste. But racist? I’m not even sure I know what racist means anymore given how quickly the term is bandied about at this slight or that. Like the word “fascist” in George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language, it means whatever its user wants it to mean and no more.

To be sure the Super Bowl ad released by Hoekstra is probably offensive to some and unproductive to those of us who are trying to make the case that Asian-Americans are natural Republicans (and in Chinese no less), but it is disturbing how quickly Congresswoman Judy Chu, Congress’s lone Chinese-American rep, compares the ad to the brutal murder of Vincent Chin nearly thirty years ago by UAW workers.

She released a statement today all but blaming Hoekstra for the murder of someone by union thugs.

“Thirty years ago, a Chinese-American man named Vincent Chin was brutally murdered on the streets of Detroit by angry workers who blamed Japan for the plight of the U.S. auto industry,” said Chu. “Three decades later, Pete Hoekstra is stoking the flames of these same anti-Asian sentiments as he runs for the U.S. Senate in the very same state.

“I am appalled at the Hoekstra campaign’s offensive and insensitive Super Bowl ad that relies heavily on negative Asian stereotypes. Politics of fear and division will never bring the American people together around the solutions they so desperately need, and I am calling on former Rep. Hoekstra to take down this atrocious ad and issue an apology immediately.”

Such comments no doubt minimize the murder of Vincent Chin with Chu’s frequent invocation of him. In June 2011, she condemned Nevada congressional candidate Mark Amodei for “using China as a scapegoat for the recession” in a campaign ad criticizing Obama’s tax-and-spend policies. Chu called the ad part of a rising tide of “anti-Asian” sentiment. The ad attacked those who would make America dependent on the Chinese dictatorship, not ethnically Chinese people, but Chu shamelessly tried to tie Amodei to the ugly racism that led to the murder of Vincent Chin, a Chinese-American beaten to death by Chrysler employees.

Of course it should tell you everything you need to know about Chu that she has to go back thirty years to find an instance of anti-Asian American prejudice and that she leaves out that the people who committed that crime (and were acquitted) were  her beloved union workers, who continue to bankroll her campaigns.

Naturally, she is also nowhere to be found when Vice President Joe Biden has repeatedly used a mocking Indian accent:

And, as I have written for The Wall Street Journal, she is conspicuously absent from the largest civil rights struggle facing Asian-Americans today: the anti-Asian discrimination she supports.

The discrimination is so bad that even Obama’s liberal Department of Education is investigating it at Princeton and Harvard, according to Bloomberg News, but Judy Chu is totally silent and therefore complicit in that institutional racism.

It’s sad, but not surprising, that Judy Chu, the self-appointed left-wing spokesmen for Asian-Americans, can only find racism when it suits her. But why do we bother listening?

Where's Judy Chu's complaint when the mayor of LA wears a racist costume?

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.

Writes SooperMexican:

The filthy liberals at Think Progress are so hellbent on getting conservative Tea Party activist Dana Loesch fired from CNN, they’ll go as far as toequate homosexuals to the Taliban.

Bets that GLAAD won’t chirp a word about that? No, they won’t, just like they didn’t say anything about the “teabagging” example above.

Progressives have comically eaten one of their own, and now are fighting with each other over whom to blame. Through it all they’ve also managed to turn it into a race issue: that somehow Erickson and Loesch weren’t fired because they’re white and Martin was suspended because he’s black.

No, Martin was suspended because CNN doesn’t want to hurt relations with GLAAD and GLAAD find offense where non exists. That’s right: GLAAD is more powerful than the Soros media. They can fabricate an offense out of thin air and hurt someone professionally over it. It’s not just fascism, it’s defamation. But that’s how progressives roll. They won’t point the fingers at GLAAD, no, they’ll double down on the stupidity.

Martin likened conservative tea partiers to racists before. Funny how those are the only people sticking up for his free speech now. You remember that, Roland Martin. Remember who really gives a damn about free speech, because it sure as hell isn’t your ideological brethren. Progressives did this to you.

Funny how white progressives attacked a black liberal and attributed an offense to him that he did not make. Funny how Think Progress decided to use something GLAAD accused Martin of doing to attack Loesch and Erickson. Think Progress won’t dare criticize the progressives actually responsible for Martin’s suspension.

But really, it’s not funny, none of it. It’s sad. It’s sad that some people are so desperate to win an argument that they compromise the very things for which they claim to stand, things like speech and real diversity.

Fascistic GLAAD wins another scalp.

Over the years, CNN’s Roland Martin has said some awfully outrageous stuff about Republicans and the Tea Party — and not on his Twitter feed, but on the air at CNN. He’s pretty much accused us of being everything  just short of Nazis due only to legitimate policy differences we’ve had with his precious Barack Obama. As a response, the left-wing speech police — who disguise themselves as “media watchdogs” — have never (according to memory and Google) put any pressure on CNN to have Martin fired, suspended, or reprimanded.  

And they shouldn’t. Martin has every right to be a racial demagogue, and CNN has every right to broadcast him. I don’t like the guy, but the thought of trying to silence him is anathema to everything I believe in. Unfortunately for Martin, the Washington Post and Politico aren’t big fans of the First Amendment and, as a result, just a few minutes ago it was reported that CNN has suspended Mr. Martin “for the time being.”

Martin’s sin? Tweeting a few childish jokes only a fascistic outlet like GLAAD could get away with pretending they are offended by. 

Martin’s mistake? Martin inadvertently stepped into a trap he probably didn’t know existed, and as a result he is now receiving an invaluable lesson about today’s politically-correct hierarchy, where gay trumps black. 

Naturally, media watchdogs who, in the past, have taken no issue with Martin’s race-baiting, are now into day three of their passive-aggressive censorship crusade that pushed CNN into taking the kind of action that puts another win in the column of GLAAD’s ongoing censorship crusade.  

Both the Washington Post, and by extension, our old friend at Politico, Dylan Byers (who is Media Matters’ bestest friend ever), just kept forcing the issue, even though Roland Martin apologized.

But.

That.

Wasn’t.

Good.

Enough.

Because, and try not to laugh…

CNN’s refusal to go on the record is starting to make a statement of its own. And it’s an ugly one: We don’t care about anti-gay violence.

Talk about bullying.

You see, when Martin is race-baiting the Right (on the air!), he’s a sacred cow. But when Martin’s having a few childish laughs that some sacred-er cow, like GLAAD, finds offensive, left-wing outlets like the Washington Post and Politico man their blacklist battle stations. 

In a right-side-up world, media watchdogs would be the primary defenders of free speech. But as we’re learning, especially with Byers, just the opposite is true. In reality and practice, they are speech-enforcers for the very worst and least tolerant on the left, and through this kind of pressure, intimidation and bullying, the goal is to regulate what people say, both on the air and off.

It just doesn’t it get any more un-American than this.

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.

Clearly, there is no comparison. O’Brien uses percentages a math trick to obscure the genuine results. Eighteen million more people on food stamps in three years under Obama is obviously far worse than 11 million over 8 years of Bush.

This is also a fight much larger than “culture.” Culture is something that defines art and common belief. Culture is something that changes with the times and can actually be defined as you wish. Much of our culture today is not what it was 50, 100, or 200 years ago. What I think is culture, may not be what you think is culture. Yes, there is an “American culture, and I believe I know what it is, but I certainly don’t trust the media or this President (who would probably see me as a “bitter” American who “clings to guns and religion”) to tell me what it is.

The Constitution doesn’t work that way, certainly not the First Amendment which guarantees religious liberty and expression. I would like to think the Constitution would define our culture, but sadly that is not always the case. For the media to call this a “culture war” greatly diminishes its value, this is a battle over the First amendment of the US Constitution. Obama wants the Constitution circumvented to pander to his base, I would hope that most of us would be united with the Catholic Church in wanting it protected.

The new part of the ObamaCare law (that nobody read before they voted on it) says that churches that provide health care and insurance, must also provide contraceptives. The Catholic Church opposes contraception.

“The White House insists this achieves a balanced approach that respects women’s health care and religious liberty, but that’s not how the Republican candidates see it,” said Jake Tapper of ABC this morning. Jake, this does nothing to protect religious liberty. It tries to destroy it.

Thankfully, the presidential hopefuls joined in the fight.

“We must have a president who is willing to protect America’s First right, a right to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. This is a violation of conscience,” said Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum says Obama has been “hostile to people of faith particularly Christians and specifically Catholics.”

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have also been avid opponents to Dear Leaders actions on this. Not just because they want to be seen as opponents, they all believe what he is doing in inherently wrong.

The Catholic Church sees it as our Founders saw it. “Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.

The media, the bastain of safety that says it will be there to protect our babies from dangerous high chairs and deadly car seats, will not be there to protect us when our Constitution is under attack. They just won’t. They will think they are picking sides and they certainly will not pick sides against Dear Leader. In fact, they will call it something else to water it down and make a fight over the First amendment the same as a battle over an art fair downtown. Well, actually, now that I think of it, if there is a battle over an art fair downtown the media will invoke the First amendment to get it done—yes they will. But in this case, a battle to the core of the our freedom to worship, it is just culture.

Yes, this is a battle, it is a fight. It is a fight between all Americans who believe in the God given right to worship as we please and express our religious preferences, and this White House, that believes it has the right to tell Catholics how they should worship. You don’t get closer to Ground Zero in a Constitutional battle than this. This is a Constitutional War, and the media should call it that.

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Bush and prominent right-wing pundit, was secretly involved in the Komen Foundation’s strategy regarding Planned Parenthood. Fleischer personally interviewed candidates for the position of “Senior Vice President for Communications and External Relations” at Komen last December. According to a source with first-hand knowledge, Fleischer drilled prospective candidates during their interviews on how they would handle the controversy about Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Fleischer’s relationship with Komen and the Planned Parenthood controversy was previously undisclosed.

A slick move, to blame the other team for your side’s transgressions in order to deflect. Sources close to the Komen Foundation tell me Fleischer wasn’t involved in any way with Komen’s Planned Parenthood strategy. The person Komen did bring in to lead the effort is none other than Brendan Daly, Nancy Pelosi’s former press secretary, who is heading a team from Ogilvy PR. While Fleischer was assisting Komen CEO Nancy Brinker in finding a qualified PR person, Fleischer wasn’t directing decisions in the resulting Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle; it was Daly.

So Think Progress is accusing Ari Fleischer for Brendan Daly’s decisions. Don’t they have an editor fact-checking such things over there?

In fact, Fleischer’s job of finding Komen a reputable PR person is arguably now more difficult due to the current PR efforts headed up by Daly.

Think Progress needs to correct their story and offer an apology to Fleischer.

*UPDATE: After publishing the initial article and blaming Fleischer for Daly’s decisions (they spelled it “Dailey” on Twitter), Think Progress spoke with Komen CEO Nancy Brinker who discussed the scope of Fleischer’s advice to the organization. After the proverbial trash hit the fan Brinker had asked Fleischer of his opinion on the matter. Think Progress, eager to avoid a retraction, pounced on this to justify their earlier smear, done before speaking to anyone at the foundation. They probably feel as though they just escaped the guillotine. Unfortunately for them, my point still stands, and yes, they still blamed Fleischer for decisions made by a former Pelosi aide. Komen asking Fleischer’s opinion after the fact has no effect on the validity of my accusation made against Think Progress. It does however, place greater significance on how hard they’re working to deflect any and all blame towards a former Pelosi aide.

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.

NBC was first. Brian Williams handed the story off to Lisa Myers. She had a packaged piece in which she featured several pro-abortion video bites, but no sound-on-tape from any pro-life people. She provided one very short pro-life quote, as a throwaway. It was advocacy journalism, pure and simple.

On ABC, Diane Sawyer did not hand off to a field reporter and did just a brief rundown of the story. But she was giddy about “people power.” There simply was no thought that anyone in the audience might have disagreed with her viewpoint.

It was a different story on CBS. Anchor Scott Pelley put the story later in his broadcast, opting for some national/international stories that he considered more important. When he handed off to Nancy Cordes, she presented a more balanced report with on-camera reaction from both sides of the issue. We suspect Pelley is influencing the CBS Evening News, and taking it down a more journalistic path. This may have to do with his journalism background in Texas.

Pelley is a native Texan who started his TV career in Lubbock and then moved to the Dallas-Fort Worth market where he eventually landed at WFAA-TV. This station is well known as one of the country’s premier news operations with virtually every reporter on staff having a fine journalistic reputation. Pelley worked there for seven years. As a correspondent for 60 Minutes, he has helped move the CBS Evening News into a more serious direction.

It is significant that the CBS Evening News employs investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, the recipient of one of the Reed Irvine Investigative Awards at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Attkisson is not afraid to offend the Obama Administration by pursuing stories such as the Department of Justice cover-up of the officially-sanctioned “Fast & Furious” arms trafficking from the U.S. to the Mexican drugs cartels. Such reporting would not be tolerated at NBC News or ABC News.

It seems unlikely that any network, however, would do an investigative piece on Planned Parenthood. This is truly a taboo subject for much of the media. Not only does Cecile Richards’ organization sell abortions to young women in trouble, but it also promotes the anything-goes sexual attitude that often leads to abortions. Baylor University economics professor Dr. John Pisciotta, in his role as head of Pro-Life Waco, has documented the despicable outreach of the local chapter that he calls “Planned Promiscuity.” The implication is that Planned Parenthood is a racket that victimizes young women and then exploits them for profit.

Meanwhile, Keach Hagey at Politico and other so-called liberal media watchdogs are assigning credit to social media for the Komen cave. We understand that liberals by the thousands got on Facebook and Twitter to complain. But what is it they were complaining about? The issue for the media was that the Komen decision could have snowballed, leading to more scrutiny of what Planned Parenthood is actually doing with the money, including federal dollars, it receives. And some of that money goes into the coffers of liberal Democrats running for office this year.

When Nancy Brinker dared to offend the leading organization behind the “sacrament” of abortion, the lines were drawn. That meant all the minions of the Left dropped what they were doing. It was time to go to war! The lives of women facing the risk of cancer were not the issue. They get their mammograms at other places anyway. The issue was the human lives already being lost at the Planned Parenthood clinics. This was the scandal that stood to be exposed, if Komen was not beaten down and put in its place.

You have to wonder what’s going on with Glenn Beck.

Beck’s fall from grace started when his site, The Blaze, falsely attacked James O’Keefe — to the delight of the very people who used to attack Beck. Then Beck, of all things, betrayed the Tea Party in the worst way any conservative could. I thought he’d hit bottom with that. After all, how much lower can you go than selling out to the mainstream media?

Well, yesterday, what I thought had been a rhetorical question was answered when The Blaze went full Andrew Sullivan, full Politico, full Wonkette, and and attacked Sarah Palin over a situation involving her family. 

The Governor’s sin? Composing what amounts to a touching article about her family’s life with Trig – Todd and Sarah Palin’s youngest son with Down Syndrome.

To understand how misleading the Blaze attack is, you first have to read what Beck’s writer, a piece of work named Eddie Scarry (more on him below), wrote:

What’s the first thing that came to mind when you heard that Rick Santorum‘s special needs child was in the hospital with pneumonia late last month? I bet all of Mitt Romney‘s money it wasn’t Sarah Palin unless you are Sarah Palin. …

Of the roughly 900-word article, 123 of them relate to Santorum and his daughter Bella who was born with Trisomy 18, a disability similar to Down syndrome.

It’s all downhill from there. For more perspective, the names “Rick” and “Santorum” appear three times total and are all found in the first paragraph. The word “my,” in reference to Palin herself, appears 15 times throughout the rest.

What the Blaze is intentionally doing here, is misleading its readers into believing Governor Palin was supposed to write a piece about the Santorum family and their daughter Bella. Moreover, The Blaze obviously wants their readers to believe that Palin selfishly exploited what happened to the Santorums so that she could write something all about herself.

That’s the only explanation for why the Blaze counts the number of times “Rick” and “Santorum” are used, or why there’s a count of how many words are dedicated to the Santorums. Why would those word counts matter otherwise?

The lie the Blaze tells here, is one of omission. But it’s a lie nonetheless, because the truth happens to be the COMPLETE opposite. Which leads me to a bigger question…

What are we to make of the fall of Glenn Beck when we’re forced to use the Huffington Post to correct his site’s misinformation … about Sarah Palin?

Yes, what just flew past your window was a pig, because today ”the truth has no agenda” at the Huffington Post:

[A] Daily Beast spokesperson says the Palin piece was assigned last week following the news that Rick Santorum’s daughter, Bella, had been hospitalized and he was briefly leaving the campaign trail.

“We asked Sarah Palin if she would like to share her personal story about life with a child with special needs upon learning about Senator Santorum’s decision last week to place his campaign on hold to be with his daughter,” the spokesperson emailed.

In other words, in the wake of what happened to Bella Santorum, Newsweek reached out to Sarah Palin — and I’m going to repeat this carefully for the Beck-impaired — to… share… her… personal… story… about… life… with… a… child… with… special… needs…

So what is Sarah Palin guilty of here? Writing the piece she was asked to write.

But what is The Blaze guilty of here? Again, telling a lie of omission and, just like Wonkette and Andrew Sullivan, using Palin’s family as a weapon against her. After nearly four years, this tactic is well-honed and easy to spot. Anytime the Governor writes about or speaks of or is seen with her family, some bottom-feeder weaponizes the event, weaponizes her own family, to beat her senseless with. And that’s exactly what The Blaze did.

And what kind lowlifes does Beck hire, anyway? When Stacy Drake, a Conservatives For Palin writer, challenged Scarry about his story via Twitter, he responded by calling her a “whore”:

—–

Scarry also writes for FishbowlDC , where degrading conservative women is a resume enhancer, so no surprise there. But it looks as though when Glenn Beck talked about, how did he put it again? — oh, yes,”Restoring Honor” — he must’ve meant other people’s honor.