Nestled in the hills of Laguna Beach, CA overlooking the Orange County coastline, a slight hint of salt in the breeze as Gen Y TV spoke with documentary filmmaker and political commentator, Stephen K. Bannon. With his latest film, “The Undefeated,” about to debut in 80 million homes through major cable and satellite companies, Bannon’s eagerness to talk to youthful viewers pushed his personal victory aside. For the next hour, I spoke with this truly humble gentleman about the existing opportunities and challenges that face my generation.

A graduate of Harvard Business School, a Surface Warfare Officer for the US Navy, and a former investment banker for Goldman Sachs, Bannon is a remarkable example of how filmmaking can come at any age and point in one’s life. Technology has enabled anyone with a digital camera to creatively express opinions as entertainment, and as a result, Bannon has written and directed four documentary films in less than two years. With our country’s finances spiraling out of control, Bannon has particularly shed light on issues that are currently affecting America’s wellbeing. He emphasized the importance of storytelling and the necessity for being passionate about the topic you are conveying. He further explained the amount of time and effort that must be committed to a project, and said, “be prepared to spend a year of your life” hashing out the story.

Moving into the specifics of his work, I asked why he chose to dedicate a film to Sarah Palin, to which he replied, because “her story has never been told.” He immediately followed with, “she is an incredibly accomplished executive who took on a corrupt and compromised political class virtually single-handed.”

The many misconceptions of Palin personified by the mainstream media opened Bannon’s film. He used this approach to gain an emotional reaction from the audience and demonstrate the influence pop culture has on the younger generation. But what started out as a conversation about independent filmmaking quickly turned to the state of the economy and the daunting problems that are soon to be inherited by those 18-35 years-old.

(more…)

The Portuguese language has a word, saudade, which  which describes “a deep emotional state of nostalgic longing for something or someone …  A stronger form of saudade may be felt towards people and things whose whereabouts are unknown, such as a lost lover, or a family member who has gone missing.”

Right now, Harvard’s Nieman Foundation for Journalism has a deep feeling of sausade for mainstream media coverage of the anti-war movement.  Their John Hanrahan reports that, although the anti-war movement is alive and well in the United States, indeed even reinvigorated by America’s involvement in Libya, they just can’t get any respect from the MSM.  Mr. Hanranhan lists in painstaking detail numerous recent protests, ranging from the pathetic  – an 84-year-old nun, an 82-year-old Jesuit priest and three other activists over the age of 60 breaking into a U.S. Naval Base near Seattle to “symbolically disarm” Trident II missiles by “putting up banners and scattering blood and sunflower seeds, and hammering symbolically on a road and fences” – to the fairly dramatic – a December 2010 protest against the war in Afghanistan which saw 131 demonstrators arrested outside the White House.  But none of these protests merited any serious media coverage much beyond local newspapers, far-left blogs and mischief-making foreign cable news outfits such as Al-Jazeera and Russia Today.

Flailing around for an explanation for why the media are no longer highlighting anti-war protests, Hanrahan’s analysis is almost self-parodying in its failure to even consider, let alone conclude, that political bias might be involved (I’ve previously blogged at Big Journalism on how the MSM’s coverage of the Obama administration’s wars is strikingly different in tone from how previous conflicts were covered).  The report acknowledges that these days the protests are smaller and less violent than during the Bush presidency (left unstated is the obvious conclusion that most of those demonstrating were primarily motivated less by opposition to war than by hatred of the Republican administration).  But if size and intensity were the main criteria for judging the newsworthiness of protests, how to explain the MSM’s wall-to wall coverage of Cindy Sheehan’s lone crusade against President Bush’s Iraq policy?

(more…)

On Friday, as many as 20 United Nations staffers were killed in Afghanistan. Reuters reported it this way (emphasis added):

(Reuters) – Afghan protesters angered by the burning of a Koran by an obscure U.S. pastor killed up to 20 U.N. staff, beheading two foreigners, when they over-ran a compound in a normally peaceful northern city on Friday in the worst ever attack on the U.N. in Afghanistan.

Note the bolded part. ABC News reported it like this:

U.N. Staffers Killed in Afghanistan Over Terry Jones Koran Burning, Police Say

At least eleven people were killed, including some United Nations officials, today in Afghanistan, apparently in response to Florida pastor Terry Jones burning the Koran last month, Afghan police and U.N. officials said.

[…]

Police told ABC News the protest started peacefully but took a violent turn after a radical leader told those gathered that multiple Korans had been burned. In a fury, the people marched on the nearby U.N. compound despite police firing AK-47s into the air in hopes of subduing them.

You see, it is not the fault of the barbarians who murdered 20 innocent people, beheading two of them. It’s the fault of some unknown hick pastor – because he burned a book.

(more…)

This is utterly revolting:

U.S. lawmakers said Sunday they would consider a request by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to formally condemn a Florida pastor’s decision to burn the Koran, after the act triggered deadly riots in Afghanistan.

Note that once again it is being said that one act – the burning of paper – “triggered” the deadly riots. Not the ideology nor the people who committed the acts, of course. Reid flat-out says that Terry Jones caused the murders — murders committed at the hands of other people. People apparently so simple-minded that they cannot think for themselves and cannot possibly know the difference between right and wrong. Headlines in newspapers conveniently omit the actual murderers.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repudiated pastor Terry Jones for touching off the chaos with what he called a “publicity stunt.” Jones had earlier threatened to burn the Koran, but then shelved the plan until last month. The burning attracted little U.S. attention at the time but was used as a rallying cry in Afghanistan.

"Freedom of speech is a great thing, but we're in the middle of a war."

“This was an effort to get some publicity for him. He got it. But in the process, 10-20 people have been killed,” Reid said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Asked whether Congress could pass a resolution condemning it, he said, “We’ll take a look at this.”

(more…)

At least, it says as much in the headline:

Eleven people–including several officials of the United Nations–were killed in Afghanistan today, and ABC News is reporting the killings may have been motivated by the burning of a Koran by Florida pastor Terry Jones.

Jones is the Gainesville, Florida pastor who made headlines for his plans to burn a Koran last September in protest of the planned Muslim community center near Ground Zero.

Last month, Jones presided over a “trial” which found the Koran “guilty,” and another pastor soaked the book in kerosene and set it on fire. The Afghanistan killings followed a protest march against Jones in the Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif. According to ABC News, “among the dead were U.N. staff and security guards who were trying to protect the staff.”

For his part, Jones has expressed no remorse …

ABC’s headline wasn’t much different.

Terry Jones must have the longest arms of anyone on the planet to have been able to reach all the way to Afghanistan from Florida. Dude apparently had his Wheaties that morning because after burning the Koran, he Go-Go-Gadgeted his arms halfway around the world and riled up a completely peaceful protest of totally peaceful people. His arms then apparently took knives from the peaceful protesters and thumbed it to the Afghan UN office where he stabbed and beheaded people. Why? What motive? Stop asking silly questions.

Is there a finder’s fee associated with turning stuff like this into the “Guinness Book of World Records?”

(more…)

Seldom do I waste time with rebutting articles, and especially not from publications like Rolling Stone.  Today, numerous people sent links to the latest Rolling Stone tripe.  The story is titled “THE KILL TEAM, THE FULL STORY.”  It should be titled: “BULLSHIT, from Rolling Stone.”

The story—not really an “article”—covers Soldiers from 5/2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) in Afghanistan.  A handful of Soldiers were accused of murder.  It does in fact appear that a tiny group of rogues committed premeditated murder.  I was embedded with the 5/2 SBCT and was afforded incredible access to the brigade by the Commander, Colonel Harry Tunnell, and the brigade Command Sergeant Major, Robb Prosser.  I know Robb from Iraq.  Colonel Tunnell had been shot in Iraq.

The brigade gave me open access.  I could go anywhere, anytime, so long as I could find a ride, which never was a problem beyond normal combat problems.  If they had something to hide, it was limited and I didn’t find it.  I was not with the Soldiers accused of murder and had no knowledge of this.  It is important to note that the murder allegations were not discovered by media vigilance, but by, for instance, at least one Soldier in that tiny unit who was appalled by the behavior.  A brigade is a big place with thousands of Soldiers, and in Afghanistan they were spread thinly across several provinces because we decided to wage war with too few troops.  Those Soldiers accused of being involved in (or who should have been knowledgeable of) the murders could fit into a minivan.  You would need ten 747s for the rest of the Brigade who did their duty.  I was with many other Soldiers from 5/2 SBCT.  My overall impression was very positive.  After scratching my memory for negative impressions from 5/2 Soldiers, I can’t think of any, actually, other than the tiny Kill Team who, to my knowledge, I never set eyes upon. (more…)

While many Americans will park in front of their televisions to watch football on Super Bowl Sunday, others will tune in just to see the commercials. Unknown to most Americans, one commercial will be seen only by members of the U.S. military deployed overseas. Sadly, it’s a spot that probably needs to be shown to federal, state and local election officials, too.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has arranged for a public service announcement (below) to air on the Armed Forces Network’s commercial-free broadcast of Super Bowl XLV in Dallas. The objective of the PSA produced in conjunction with the Federal Voting Assistance Program is to remind overseas military of their right to vote.

Why should the FVAP spot be shown to election officials? Because election fraud, electioneering, vote fraud — call itwhat you will — seemed to run rampant during the 2010 election cycle.

Prior to the 2010 general election, several reports surfaced about problems with absentee ballots for military members stationed outside of their states of legal residence:

• BigGovernment.com reported about Illinois soldiers waiting for ballots;

• The Buffalo News reported on ballots being mailed after the federal deadline had passed;

• Pamela Geller reported on multiple cases of military ballots not being counted; and

• Investors Business Daily published an editorial, Denying Our Soldiers the Vote.

The four articles above stand as but a few examples of the voting problems faced by servicemembers deployed to other states and overseas in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not surprisingly, the subject — “Allegations of fraud, including illegal voting by felons and a formalized refusal by some states to follow election law regarding ballots for the military, raise the dark possibility of the manipulation of elections.” — finished in sixth place on World Net Daily’s list of most covered-up stories of 2010.

Let your elected officials know you want to ensure members of the military have their votes counted. Send each of them a link to this post!

After Afghan president hails POTUS for setting the “tone right” in morning session Saturday, Obama responds, “That was my goal. Every once in a while, I do things right.

An excuse to post this .jpeg:

I love how his face seemingly peeks out from the black-and-white news columns of the day to defiantly whisper: “PSSST. HEY. Still heeeeere.” His existence may have been obscured by the hubris surrounding the current administration, an increase in terrorist attacks, a movement born partly because of several Bush policies, and an election; the sudden appearance of Bush across all the networks and on the front and cover pages reminds us that even though he isn’t the sort of GOPer grassroots adore, he was infinitely better than the man currently in the White House, a man who bows to anything with a pulse.

(more…)

Paul Krugman has a typically bombastic new column titled The Focus Hocus-Pocus. His thesis:

the notion that the Obama administration erred by not focusing on the economy is hardening into conventional wisdom. But I have no idea what, if anything, people mean when they say that. The whole focus on “focus” is, as I see it, an act of intellectual cowardice — a way to criticize President Obama’s record without explaining what you would have done differently. [Emphasis added]

Using “focus” as a vague way to attack the President…Why does that ring a bell?

Back in 2006 a similar claim was widely repeated in the media, i.e. the Iraq war had caused us to lose focus on the important war in Afghanistan. For instance, this NY Times editorial from August 2006 concludes:

Americans are coming to see the war in Iraq as something apart from the war against 9/11-style terrorism — and a distraction from it. The war in Afghanistan has always been an essential part of that larger struggle. That makes it a war that America simply cannot afford to lose.

(more…)

In April, I reported that the New York Times was about to publish a list of covert American operatives providing force protection for our troops in Afghanistan. A month later, the Times admitted that it did in fact have the list, but that they did not intend to publish the names. It was the right thing to do and we commended them for it. We are hoping that they will once again exhibit such sound judgment.

From a source inside the Times, I have just been told that the findings of a confidential Department of Defense investigation have been leaked to a specific NYT reporter (whose name I am withholding).

Since March, I have been writing about the ongoing battle between the CIA and the Department of Defense over the DoD’s use of former Special Operations and former CIA personnel to provide force protection for our troops in the Af/Pak theater. The good news is that the CIA and the DoD have decided to bury the hatchet. The bad news is that they are doing so right in the back of one of America’s most dedicated patriots, Michael Furlong.

Until recently, Furlong helped coordinate the DoD’s force protection efforts in Afghanistan. His efforts, as well as those of the brave men and women working within the force protection program he oversaw, have prevented the deaths of incalculable numbers of American troops. It would seem, though, that Furlong and his team were too good at their jobs.

At great personal risk, they were doing what the CIA claimed couldn’t be done. What’s more, they were doing it more efficiently and for far less cost to the American taxpayer. The turf battle that ensued between Langley and the Pentagon quickly found its way onto the front pages of the New York Times where the Central Intelligence Agency drove most of the narrative, including all sorts of accusations. (more…)

Obama’s unforced-error endorsement of the mosque at Ground Zero — he did it because he wanted to — may well turn out to be the single action that doomed his presidency, as Americans cast off the intellectual shackles of political correctness and finally began to see the Punahou Kid for who and what he really is.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, in the course of a long profile about disgraced professor Michael Bellesiles, has this to say about his latest whopper:

Then, after I interviewed him, Mr. Bellesiles published an essay in The Chronicle Review. In the piece, which seemed innocuous enough, he writes about a student in his military-history class at Central Connecticut State whose brother was killed in Iraq. The essay is about how real life intrudes on the classroom, how teachers must be sensitive to what’s going on in the lives of their students.

One of his old critics, James Lindgren, then wrote a post on the group blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Mr. Lindgren, a professor of law at Northwestern University, had searched through the records of military deaths and couldn’t find one that matched the description in Mr. Bellesiles’s essay. Other bloggers piled on, including Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit, and Megan McArdle, of The Atlantic. The title of one post, “Is Bellesiles At It Again?,” conveys the tenor of the response.

Like Mr. Lindgren, I couldn’t find any military records that matched the details in the essay. I contacted the teaching assistant for the class, who confirmed Mr. Bellesiles’s version of events, saying that the student had seemed distressed and had told him that his brother was killed in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I had a brief conversation with the student, who told me the brother’s name and said he was in the Army. I then spoke with an Army official, who searched a database containing the names of all service members killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The name didn’t come up.

In an e-mail exchange I then had with the student, he admitted that he had lied about some of the details he told Mr. Bellesiles, the teaching assistant, and, later, me. It wasn’t his brother but rather a friend who had died in Afghanistan. He explained the situation in more detail, but I’m going to keep those details private. Exposing him doesn’t seem right, even if his credibility is questionable.

(more…)

One of the nation’s highest-ranking former spy hunters says that the individuals responsible for the theft and publication of tens of thousands of secret military documents should be prosecuted under federal espionage laws. The Obama Administration is pursuing the disclosure of more than 90,000 secret documents to WikiLeaks.org as merely the mishandling of classified information – a far less serious offense than espionage.

Administration supporters say that the leak was not espionage. But one of the country’s most successful counterintelligence officials argues the contrary – and says that legal precedent proves it.

Kenneth E. deGraffenreid

“We have an excellent precedent in the case of Samuel Loring Morison,” the naval intelligence analyst who compromised top secret U.S. imagery intelligence capabilities, says Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, who as Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive from 2004-2006 was the nation’s second-ranking counterintelligence official. Morison served a two-year sentence on conviction of espionage for having compromised U.S. secrets – not to a foreign intelligence service, but to a British publishing company.

“The Morison case was an espionage case. Morison was charged with espionage because he provided classified information to a foreign power,” deGraffenreid tells BigPeace.com. It doesn’t matter that the foreign power was a private media company housed in one of the most solid and reliable American allies: “Morison stole U.S. secrets and provided them to Jane’s, the British military publisher. It was like taking U.S. defense secrets and laying them out in the street in front of the Russians.”

(more…)

All week we’ve been exploring America’s ten most left-biased working journalists and now we come to spot number four on the list. And so, for his close attention to pushing the spin and as one of the most active members of the Old Media’s Obama Butt Covering squad, we are pleased to award the number four spot to NBC Political Director Chuck Todd.

Todd is one of those journos that came from Democrat political circles — having worked for Iowa Democrat Senator Tom Harkin’s 1992 presidential run — and then crossed over into the world of “journalism.” With that you just know that he can be as unbiased as the best of them in his reporting. Well, if he can we’ll never know it because so far he has not been. Just the opposite, really.

Todd has done a bang-up job for the left in his journalism career. Likely Todd’s loyalty to the Democrat Party is probably why he felt the need to slam Senator Joe Lieberman last year, for instance. Proving his blindness to real political analysis, Todd claimed that Joe Lieberman was the “polar opposite” of the Senate’s lone socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (officially an “independent”).

In a discussion on the Today Show about the then yet to pass Obamacare bill, Todd said of Lieberman and Sanders, “Meanwhile, the Senate’s two Democratic independents, polar opposites ideologically, are split over the bill’s government-run public option and both are threatening to scuttle the process if they don’t get their way.” (more…)