Archive for Media Bias

Ready to Torpedo Hillary

Rush Limbaugh mentioned today how it wasn’t just conservative media (barely a media, more of a medium) going after Hillary Clinton’s dodgy foundation funding, but a vast left-wing conspiracy too.

Case in point:

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

That’s the WaPo, but you can read similar stories in the NY Times, USA Today, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters.

So, what is the Clinton Foundation?

We believe that the best way to unlock human potential is through the power of creative collaboration. That’s why we build partnerships between businesses, NGOs, governments, and individuals everywhere to work faster, better, and leaner; to find solutions that last; and to transform lives and communities from what they are today to what they can be, tomorrow.

Everywhere we go, we’re trying to work ourselves out of a job.

Sounds like Hillary’s just about managed that.

But why? Let’s set aside the least likely possibility: that the mainstream media is just doing its job. Since when?

No, they have a motive. Could they be anti-Hillary? Surely, she’s made her share of enemies, and her political ear is about as tin as the Woodman in the Wizard of Oz.

But come on. Don’t be thick. There’s one overriding reason the media is Not Ready for Hillary.


This isn’t hard, people.

Comments

When the Liberal Media Ask Chicken[bleep] Questions

Raise chicken-scratch:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is fundraising off what he describes as “gotcha” questions from the media.

Walker’s campaign sent an email requesting donations Sunday night. The email from Friends of Scott Walker, which runs his reelection campaign, said the governor “refuses to be distracted by the small, petty, and pale ideas that the ‘gotcha’ headline writers for the Liberal Media want to talk about.”

“He refuses to be drawn into the sideshow of answering pointless questions about whether and how much President Obama loves our country. To Governor Walker, what matters are ideas, issues, his record, and results,” the email from Friends of Scott Walker continued. “Now is the time to stand up against the publicity hounds and the journalistic pack, and help Governor Walker fight back. Your support will show the clueless and mindless journalistic herd that you know what matters most and that it is not the pointless minutiae that they are pushing.”

Every challenge is an opportunity. When they ask you if you think Obama loves this country, say “I should hope so: he’s the President. Americans elected him to lead them—twice! The US Senate before that, and the Illinois state senate before that. And two Ivy League schools before that! Oh yeah, and as much as I love my native state of Wisconsin, I’d have traded winters with his Hawaii boyhood every year. America has showed him the love all his life. I have to believe that love is reciprocated.” When they press you with a follow-up (because they’re nothing if not predictable), say: “Really, that’s for the president to answer. If you’re asking me do I love America, you bet!” And then launch into a prepared peroration of inspiring rhetoric about the greatness and uniqueness of America. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Answer the question on your own terms. Their terms are idiotic and irrelevant.

Comments

Serious About Terror

The regime finally wakes up to the threats endangering the country:

They’re carrying out sporadic terror attacks on police, have threatened attacks on government buildings and reject government authority.

A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists, and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.

Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.

The left-wing media had me scared about right-wing militias twenty years ago. Tim McVeigh, OKC—I was agog. But there was no there there. A few nuts, sure, but no unified movement.

Now I see things for what they are. When an administration swings wildly to the left, people naturally organize to swing it back. Hence the Tea Party and the 2010 midterm elections. Soccer moms and blue collar workers are hardly a reactionary movement to fear.

Leave it to CNN to serve as the regime’s propaganda voice box.

Comments

Great Day For Folks Looking For Tea Party Terrorists [Update: Perpetrator Is An Atheist]

Three Muslim students apparently murdered because they were Muslim

I have posted the CNN link, but be aware that it opens to a noisy video.

This is a terrible day for UNC:

A 46-year-old man has been charged with murder in the shooting death of three Muslim students in an apartment near the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill campus.

Police haven’t said what may have compelled the accused, Craig Stephen Hicks, to allegedly carry out the attack Tuesday evening. He turned himself in to police later in the night.

But given the victims’ religion and comments the alleged shooter apparently left on a Facebook page, many social media users wondered what role, if any, the victims’ faith played.

The victims were Muslims: Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23; Yusor Mohammad, 21; and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19.

Barakat was Mohammad’s husband; Abu-Salha was her sister, the school said.

Barakat was a second-year student at the UNC School of Dentistry, who was raising money on a fundraising site to provide dental care to Syrian refugees in Turkey.

He had been married for just over a month to Yusor Mohammad, who was planning to begin her dental studies at UNC in the fall, according to the school.

Abu-Salha was a student at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

All three had been shot in the head

This is obviously a tragedy. Aside from that, it will be fascinating to see if the President is able to identify the religion of the victims and why they were murdered. I doubt this one will be chalked up to randomness. (And we don’t know if the shooter is a Tea Party member, a neo-Nazi or just mentally ill, but I bet the press assumes that he is somehow a conservative, Tea Party member, because they have to have something that feels like balance in their feeble minds).

Update: The Israeli media says the perpetrator is an extremist atheist.

suspected radical atheist is in police custody after allegedly murdering three young Muslims in the North Carolina college town of Chapel Hill, media reports indicate.

According to the British newspaper Independent, the three Muslims, who were all from the same family, were in their home when a 46-year-old man identified by police as Craig Stephen Hicks gunned them down.

If he’s not conservative, this won’t get much coverage. He’ll be mentally ill.

– Aggie

Comments

Who Wants to Take a Look at the Boffo New Jobs Report?

Tough, you have to. It’s like broccoli: you might as well learn to like it.

The unemployment rate, at 5.7 percent, changed little in January and has shown no net change since October. The number of unemployed persons, at 9.0 million, was little changed in January.

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers (18.8 percent) increased in January. The jobless rates for adult men (5.3 percent), adult women (5.1 percent), whites (4.9 percent), blacks (10.3 percent), Asians (4.0 percent), and Hispanics (6.7 percent) showed little or no change.

In January, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 2.8 million.

The labor force participation rate rose by 0.2 percentage point to 62.9 percent, following a decline of equal magnitude in the prior month. Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by 435,000 in January, and the employment-population ratio was little changed at 59.3 percent.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged in January at 6.8 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

There. Don’t you feel better?

Oh, and by the way:

If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news — currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast “falling” unemployment.

There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

A Big Lie trumpeted by the New York Times and the rest of the useless press. But not here.

Comments

Oregonian Calls For Resignation Of Governor Two Weeks Into Term Over Green Issues

Despite the obvious ethical problems, the Oregonian endorsed him for election

Rarely do we get to enjoy a story that covers ethical violations, democrats, green energy and the stupidity of the MSM all in one place. Oregon will do that for you, and that’s why we love it so much here.

“I’m not going to consider resigning,” said Gov. John Kitzhaber at a disastrous press conference held Friday following revelations about the apparently borderless world of public policy and private gain in which he and fiancée Cylvia Hayes exist. “I was elected by the people of this state to do a job, and I intend to do it.”

No doubt, the governor does intend to do the job Oregonians gave him, which, simply put, is to pursue the interests of his constituents. That intention, however, is no match for an ugly reality of his own making, whose sordid elements keep surfacing with dispiriting regularity, most recently this week thanks to the work of Nick Budnick and Laura Gunderson of The Oregonian/OregonLive. Two people involved in Kitzhaber’s 2010 campaign helped Hayes find paid work with groups interested in Oregon policy, Budnick and Gunderson reported. Both have landed in Kitzhaber’s administration.

More ugliness may surface, but it should be clear by now to Kitzhaber that his credibility has evaporated to such a degree that he can no longer serve effectively as governor. If he wants to serve his constituents he should resign.

To recite every reported instance in which Hayes, ostensibly under Kitzhaber’s watchful eye, has used public resources, including public employee time and her “first lady” title, in pursuit of professional gain would require far more space than we have here and, besides, repeat what most readers already know. Suffice it to say there’s a pattern, and the person who bears the responsibility for allowing it to form and persist is Kitzhaber, who should know better. After all, as he pointed out during Friday’s press conference, he’s been serving in public office on and off since the 1970s.

Consider, instead, what Oregonians have learned during only the last couple of weeks. First, Hayes received a combined $118,000 in 2011 and 2012 through the Washington, D.C.-based Clean Economy Development Center even as she served as an unpaid energy adviser to Kitzhaber. This income is not fully accounted for on tax forms Hayes provided to The Oregonian/OregonLive. Neither has the governor fully accounted for the money in ethics filings.

A big chunk of Hayes’ fellowship money, $75,000, came from the San Francisco-based Energy Foundation, a nonprofit that funds clean-energy initiatives such as the low carbon fuel standard. Implementing a low carbon fuel standard is a priority for both Kitzhaber and Democratic leaders in the Legislature. The session’s first public hearing on a bill to that end happened on Monday.

How did Hayes end up with a fellowship funded by an organization with an interest in clean-energy policy in Oregon? A Kitzhaber campaign adviser, Dan Carol, helped arrange the funding following Kitzhaber’s election in 2010, Budnick and Gunderson reported. Carol subsequently landed a position within the Kitzhaber administration. That position, Willamette Week has reported, pays more than $165,000, making Carol Kitzhaber’s highest-paid aide.

Who knew following the trail of “clean energy” money could make you feel so dirty?

Another campaign adviser, Greg Wolf, helped land Hayes a position with the Rural Development Initiatives. The nonprofit, Budnick and Gunderson reported, wanted Hayes to help raise money for a clean economy project – including tens of thousands for which Kitzhaber’s support was needed. Wolf, like Carol, later secured a position in Kitzhaber’s administration.

Is it any wonder Kitzhaber now finds himself stranded in an ethical swamp? To understand the full extent of his predicament, consider his inability to answer one simple question during his press conference Friday: Is Hayes a member of your household? He answered this question in the affirmative on multiple occasions in ethics filings. But on Friday, following the discovery of apparently unreported fellowship income, he said, “I have no idea whether she is ‘legally’ a member of my household.”

The governor has not yet quibbled about the meaning of “is,” but Friday’s evasions were almost Clintonian.

More at the link, of course. Aside from the clean energy thievery, prior to the election is came out that Kitzhaber’s live-in partner, Hayes, had previously married a man for money. He wanted citizenship; she wanted money. They never lived together and got a formal divorce after he received US citizenship. The Oregonian forgave that and endorsed Kitzhaber anyway.

Aside from the relentless rain, Oregon is a fun place.

– Aggie

Comments

Folks or Volks?

I was just going to sit down and write about Obama’s cynical use of the word “folks” (five mentions in the SOTU), only to see that Aggie beat me to it. Still, I have a favorite:

I intend to protect a free and open Internet, extend its reach to every classroom, and every community — (applause) — and help folks build the fastest networks so that the next generation of digital innovators and entrepreneurs have the platform to keep reshaping our world.

“Folks” built the internet? I thought Al Gore and Tim Berners-Lee did. They’re not “folks”. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates? Not “folks”. His folk-o-meter malfunctioned.

Oddly enough, folks are not always the little guy who needs a break. Sometimes, folks are just evil:

Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does: 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.

I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act.

Those folk bastards! Get ‘em!

Another of Obama’s tired tropes is “the time for debate is over”, usually employed when he’s losing the debate. But guess what? Sometimes, the debate shouldn’t be over:

So while some have moved on from the debates over our surveillance programs, I have not.

Ray Bolger couldn’t have played a better straw man. Who’s moved on from the debates over our surveillance programs? And they’re not ours, they’re yours! You, Dumbo-ears, you who’ve been in the White House for six years.

But if you want to know the most fascistic phrase liberals have invented, this guy has a candidate:

The phrase “an idea whose time has come” pops up a lot these days, usually though not always in conjunction with left-leaning or “progressive” policy changes.

“The idea of making community college free,” wrote Gary Stix of the Scientific American about a proposal put forward recently by President Obama, “is one whose time has come.” A social-studies teacher last month told Los Angeles Times columnist Sandy Banks that the introduction of an ethnic-studies requirement in L.A. schools is “an idea whose time has come.” And in a Washington Post article last summer about workplace-flexibility legislation, Joan Lombardi, a child-care expert, told the paper that, yes, “It’s an idea whose time has come.”

The line works well on the campaign trail—it lends a bit of intellectual frisson to stump-speech rhetoric—but you shouldn’t take it too far. President Obama, at a Labor Day rally in 2014, told the crowd: “There’s only one thing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” And what would that be? “Millions of people organizing around an idea whose time has come.” That makes no sense at all.

You mean…it’s inarticulate? [Gasp!]

There is something else that rankles about the phrase. It’s that whiff of arrogance you always get from the rhetoric of inevitability. Those who use it claim to win the argument without having worked for it; they appeal to fate, which for some unstated reason is on their side. If you think their ideas are naïve or half-baked, that’s because you haven’t come to terms with reality. (Or are “on the wrong side of history,” as the president likes to say.) Of course, lots of terrible ideas once had their times come, too, and they were all promoted with the rhetoric of inevitability: communism, socialism, eugenics, racial hegemony of various kinds.

So, true enough: One does not resist the invasion of ideas. But surely one can resist the invasion of an insidious cliché.

It is the nature of politicians to try to peddle snake oil. So, Obama is just another snake oil salesman. But to have so many members of the media wearing sandwich boards out front, promoting the guy—remember, Oz (the great and powerful) was just a flim-flam man:


The time for debate is over. A twister is an idea whose time has come.

Comments

Another Milhous in the White House

Seriously, it’s like 40 years ago, all over again:

In her memoir Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, Attkisson looks back on the final years of her network career. One concludes from her book that Attkisson encountered more difficulty practicing her profession at CBS News during Obama’s tenure than at any other time. She reached an agreement for her departure from CBS News in March 2014, well before her contract was to expire.

The book’s subtitle refers to the difficulties Attkisson encountered in “Obama’s Washington.” The term is in part a euphemism for the Obama administration, but it also reflects the support for the administration within CBS News. The head of CBS News is David Rhodes, brother of Obama national-security adviser Ben Rhodes.

Let’s digest that for a moment. I write a lot about the Democrat-Media Complex, but this is as bad as it gets—tied, I suppose, with Al Sharpton on MSNBC, George Stephanopoulos on ABC, David Axelrod wherever he is, Mr. and Mrs. Jay Carney wherever they are, crony capitalist Jeffrey Immelt, head of GE (parent corporation of the the NBC networks), etc. ad nauseam.

Each of the scandals falls into a larger pattern of scandal management practiced by the Obama White House. (The reader can infer how the IRS scandal fits the pattern precisely to a T.) Her book is invaluable for how it analyzes and exposes this pattern, combining her reportage and her behind-the-scenes work at CBS News.

The pattern begins with blatant denials — bald lies — and stonewalling. Attkisson deftly articulates one of the bona fide occupational qualifications for service as a spokesperson in the Obama administration. Referring specifically to HHS spokeswoman Joanne Peters, whom Attkisson had caught lying to her, she writes: “It takes a certain kind of person to be untruthful and then display utter lack of contrition when caught.”

You say Joanne Peters, I hear Haldeman and Erlichman.

Also, rather than responding to straightforward inquiries, administration spokesmen pump reporters for the information they have so they can undermine it. Attkisson calls this technique “pump and mine.” The administration then plants slanted leaks to friendly bloggers and reporters; next, it characterizes any advances in the story as “old news.”

Attkisson also shows how the administration, using a technique she calls “controversialization,” disparages any sources and reporters who move the story forward. As she recounts in the book, Attkisson has extensive personal experience being at the receiving end of this technique.

She singles out Media Matters as the main outlet that moves administration spin into the mainstream media. As Attkisson demonstrates, however, the power of Media Matters derives from the complicity and cooperation of its many allies in the media, i.e., the many Obama allies in the media.

See above.

She writes:

Perhaps the greatest PR coup of all is that the administration’s expert spinners successfully lead the media by the nose down the path of concluding there’s no true controversy unless there’s a paper trail that lays blame directly on the president’s desk. Time and again, with each scandal and each damaging fact, Democrats and the White House read from the script that says, “there’s no evidence President Obama knew” or “there’s no evidence of direct White House involvement.” Anything short of a signed confession from the president is deemed a phony Republican scandal, and those who dare to ask questions are crazies, partisans, or conspiracy theorists. . . .

Under President Obama, the press dutifully regurgitates the line “no evidence of White House involvement,” ignoring the fact that if any proof exists, it would be difficult to come by under an administration that fails to properly respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, routinely withholds documents from Congress, and claims executive privilege to keep documents secret.

You say Barack Obama, I hear Richard Nixon.

Attkisson bookends her accounts of the Obama-administration scandals she covered with the story of what she describes as coordinated intrusions into her telephones and computers. She was working on the Benghazi story when a friendly source “connected to a three-letter agency” offered a surprising observation. “The administration is likely monitoring you — based on your reporting,” the source advised her. She had, in fact, been having troubles with her phones and computers, which were behaving oddly.

Three sets of experts — including experts hired by CBS — examined her computers. All reached the same conclusion: She was the victim of computer intrusion and monitoring. One expert found classified government documents secreted in her hard drive, though she had not placed them there and had nothing to do with them. She believes that they were placed there by the intruders for use against her at an appropriate time.

The Department of Justice has issued two statements on Attkisson’s case. In response to Attkisson’s first public mention of her experience, in the course of a radio interview, the Department of Justice said:

To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never “compromised” Ms. Attkisson’s computers, or otherwise sought any information from or concerning any telephone, computer, or other media device she may own or use.

You say Justice Department, I hear Justice Department.

Comments (1)

The Courage of His Convictions

How can we defend your freedom of speech, Jim Clancy, when you won’t defend it yourself?

Senior CNN international correspondent Jim Clancy appears to have deleted his Twitter account following a firestorm over a bizarre anti-Israel tirade last week.

Following the murder of 12 people at the Paris headquarters of the Charlie Hebdo magazine, Clancy got into an argument over whether the magazine has actually insulted the founder of Islam Mohammed in its famously provocative cartoons.

But the discussion rapidly deteriorated when Clancy launched a barrage of verbal abuse at several Jewish respondents, attacking them as “pro-Israeli” and accusing some of attempting to promulgate “an anti-Muslim and pro-Israel agenda.”

Several of his followers reacted with shock at his response, with some calling into question his objectivity as a journalist who frequently reports from the Middle East.

Clancy remained unrepentant, however, with a slew of tweets attacking “hasbara” (pro-Israel) activists.

He was also criticized by the head of a disability charity, after he tweeted to one of his critics: “@HumanRights2K Get a grip, junior. It’s my Friday night. You and the Hasbara team need to pick on some cripple on the edge of the herd.”

Jay Ruderman, who heads the Ruderman Family Foundation which advocates for greater integration of people suffering with disabilities, demanded an apology from Clancy, but was promptly blocked.

If CNN reporters are not free to taunt Jews and make fun of the disabled, the terrorists will have won.

Branding the “cripple” comment “appalling,” Ruderman asked how “in this day and age a senior anchor at CNN, a world leader in the media, would use a word such as ‘cripple’, which is a derogatory term for people with disabilities.”

“If a news anchor had hurled a racial epithet, CNN’s response undoubtedly would have been swift,” Ruderman said in a statement. “The disability community expects CNN to extend the same sensitivity to people with disabilities as it does to other minority communities.”

Last year, during the infamous “chickens**t” scandal, Ruderman complained to the White House over alleged comments by an unnamed senior official who referred to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as “Aspergery.”

How come the Left feels comfortable pushing the boundaries of free speech only against Jews? Why not call Al Sharpton chickens**t (when the epithet fits)? Isn’t Valerie Jarrett “Aspergery”? I’d defend their right to free expression if only they’d have the nuts to express themselves.

Comments

Fox News Calls Nancy Pelosi a Lush! [UPDATED]

Correction: Fox News called John Boehner, not Nancy Pelosi, a lush. We regret the error.

Correction II: Boston.com, not Fox news, called John Boehner, not Nancy Pelosi, a lush. We regret the error.

[We’re just trying to get hired by Boston.com]

A Boston.com story that made light of a threat against House Speaker John Boehner has drawn the ire of the Ohio congressman, prompting an apology from the website.

Posted online Tuesday night, the story suggested that Boehner has a drinking problem and asked whether anyone would have noticed if Boehner had been poisoned. That comment was in reference to news that a former bartender at an Ohio country club where Boehner is a member has been arrested for allegedly threatening to kill the congressman.

“Stories about Boehner’s drinking have circulated for years,” wrote Victor Paul Alvarez, one of a handful of associate editors at Boston.com, in a passage that has since been removed from the website. “Had he been poisoned as planned, perhaps his pickled liver could have filtered out the toxins.”

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, fired back in an e-mail Wednesday.

“I would have thought it would be obvious to any sentient human being that your item mocking the threats against the speaker and his family was completely insensitive and inappropriate,” Steel wrote. “Should you wish to offer an explanation, or – better – an apology, feel free to respond.”

Mike Sheehan, the chief executive of Boston Globe Media Partners LLC, said he spoke with Boehner’s office and sent a note of apology Wednesday afternoon.

“It’s very difficult to hit the epicenter of tasteless, mean-spirited, and humorless in one fell swoop,” Sheehan said in an interview.

In a statement released Wednesday, Boston.com general manager Corey Gottlieb said the Alvarez piece did not reflect the site’s values.

“The original column made references to Speaker Boehner that were off-color and completely inappropriate,” Gottlieb wrote. “We are sorry, and we will do better.”

Boston.com is owned by Boston Globe Media Partners LLC but operates independently from The Boston Globe and BostonGlobe.com.

“There is a really fine line between tongue in cheek . . . and what’s unfair or hurtful,” Gottlieb said, but Alvarez’s story clearly crossed that line. He declined to say whether Alvarez would be disciplined for the story.

Since threatening the life of a Republican is hardly news (until the culprit is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize), you may not have heard:

Last October, Hoyt allegedly told police he was going to kill Boehner, who he claimed was responsible for the spread of Ebola.

Hoyt allegedly said he planned to shoot Boehner and suggested he could poison one of his drinks.

Freedom of the press trumps all to me, so if the snide comment was in an opinion piece, I would defend it from the outside, even if I would have spiked it from the inside. (I run a blog, not a supposedly respectable news site. As editor the latter, I would never have allowed it, even if I might have written something like that here.)

But then, it has to go both ways. You can’t make fun of Boehner’s liver and Sarah Palin’s special needs son, and not let me have a go at Obama’s nicotine addiction, Pelosi’s Botox addiction, and John Kerry’s John Kerry addiction.

UPDATE
The guy got canned.

Comments

Bonkers or Believers?

I’ve seen references in news headlines to the “motivations” of the Paris terrorists. Round up the usual suspects: Israel, Bush, Abu Ghraib, Two Broke Girls. But wait: we were told the killers were madmen, irrational actors driven to slaughter by a screwed-up pituitary gland or something. Now, they are depicted as making rational (if overreactive) decisions. Something (Israel, Bush, etc. ad nauseam) offended their sensibilities (Muslim sensibilities, as they say, since we’re now taking what they said as gospel, pardon the pun), and they reacted. Violently.

I don’t see how the Left can have it both ways. Israel and Bush (etc. ad nauseam) were either triggers for this carnage, and the killers made calculated choices to respond (against Jews and those “insulted” the prophet); or their minds were warped by hate and blood lust, pay no attention to what they said (about avenging Islam).

The same goes for the Left: don’t listen. And for the same reason: their minds are warped by hate. David Berkowitz was mad as a hatter, but if the Son of Sam had told the police that he went on a killing spree because the neighbor’s dog had told him that the rise of Reagan could be stopped only by pumping bullets into the brain pans of couples making out in cars, the Left and the media (a distinction without a difference) would have given him his own show on whatever the radio equivalent of MSNBC was at the time.

Comments

We Are All Shoppers In A Kosher Grocery In Paris

Expect to see thousands on the streets of Paris and NY waving signs saying: I am a French Jew!

But don’t hold your breath:

PARIS – Several people were taken hostage at a kosher supermarket in eastern Paris on Friday after a shootout involving a man armed with two guns, a police source said. Two people were killed, according to police sources quoted by AFP.

There were unconfirmed local media reports that the man was the same as the one suspected of killing a policewoman in a southern suburb of Paris on Thursday.

A police source had told Reuters earlier he was a member of the same jihadist group as the two suspects in Wednesday’s attack at weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

The exact number of hostages was unclear. Local media spoke of at least five. The police source said the man was equipped with automatic weapons.

And in the US, a CNN anchor blames… wait for it… Israel!!

A CNN anchor claimed that Israeli propagandists are distorting the truth behind the terrorist attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and trying to sow anti-Muslim sentiment on Wednesday evening.

Repeatedly stating that it was his “Friday night” and he just wanted to relax, CNN anchor Jim Clancy argued on Twitter that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons did not actually mock the Islamic prophet Muhammad and claimed that those who disagreed with him were part of a pro-Israel propaganda campaign.

Clancy appears to have removed some of the more inflammatory tweets, but several still remain on his Twitter page. A spokesperson for CNN did not respond to request for comment.

“The cartoons NEVER mocked the Prophet,” wrote Clancy on Wednesday night. “They mocked how the COWARDS tried to distort his word.”

When this claim was disputed by some of his followers, Clancy suggested they were engaging in “hasbara,” an Israeli PR effort.

“Get a grip junior,” Clancy wrote to @HumanRights2K, a Belgium-based human rights news feed. “It’s my Friday night. You and the Hasbara team need to pick on some cripple at the edge of the herd.”

Clancy also tweeted “hasbara” in response to a comment from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Oren Kessler, and added, “The Hasbara (Israeli explaining the inconsistencies of Human Rights) team has declared victory over [me]. Next up, [International Criminal Court].” The second tweet appears to have been removed.

Clancy went on to accuse pro-Israel blogger Elder of Ziyon and a Twitter user called @JewsMakingNews of being “part of a campaign to do PR for Israel.” The tweet has also been removed.

Jews Making News is an anti-Semitic Twitter feed devoted to “exposing” alleged Jewish global domination and promoting Holocaust-denial. It is unclear why Clancy named either of the Twitter users as Israeli PR agents.

Clancy’s followers appeared baffled by his allegations, with one asking “Are you drunk right now or something?”

This was not the first time Clancy, who covers foreign affairs, made controversial comments related to Israel. He was criticized last April after he asked former Israeli ambassador Dore Gold whether Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu “personally order[ed]” airstrikes on Gaza as a response to a unity deal between Fatah and Hamas. Clancy also praised the deal as a way to bring “fresh blood” into the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

To get the extremely offensive tweets that are deleted in the above article, check out the Israeli media

– Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »