AIM Promotes Concussion Trutherism Topic: Accuracy in Media
An Aug. 19 Accuracy in Media article by Malcolm Kline uncritically promotes a new book defending football and minimizing the impact of the injuries its players suffer.
The book, "The War on Football" by Daniel J. Flynn, appears to fulfill the right-wing agenda of its publisher, Regnery, by channeling RushLimbaugh's lamenting that concussions aren't a real problem for football players and efforts to reduce the incidence of concussions will destroy the sport. Kline even throws his own two cents into the endorsement:
Moreover, as Flynn eloquently points out, the benefits of football far outweigh the drawbacks. “Players get knocked down and they either stand up or stay on the dirt,” Flynn writes. “Teams lose.”
“Then they choose—regroup to fight another day or fold. Perseverance makes the impossible possible. Players succeed by transcending pain rather than brooding in it.”
The season I played on the team in high school—sophomore year—I had one pulled muscle. That’s when one of the coaches taught me a trick I’ve used ever since. Don’t respond to pain by doubling over but by straightening up. It works. Could that be a metaphor for life itself?
If concussions are such a minor problem, why did the NFL refuse to cooperate with a documentary produced by ESPN and public television on the effects of concussions in the league? (ESPN has since taken its name off the documentary due to arguments about editorial control.)
Kline is the head of AIM's offshoot, Accuracy in Academia. He apparently didn't try to find any, in the form of dissenting opinions on the concussion issue, before writing this column.
American leaders have been overloading the economy with debt to pay for goodies promised to the populace since long before Obama, but the first big push for outright misallocation of capital (something strongly promoted by progressives) started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, signed by Jimmy Carter. After all, the two principal economic engines driving the U.S. economy were automobiles and housing. The Act forced banks to misdirect their investment capital to areas and individuals that previously did not merit credit because of the high risks involved.
Thus, in place of 30-year mortgage loans that in the 1960s had fairly strict standards and required 20 percent down, we ended up with “liar loans” and 0 percent down, all with the support of Fannie Mae and the blessings of progressive officialdom.
Marszalk gets two things wrong here. First, the CRA did not force banks to "misdirect their investment capital to areas and individuals that previously did not merit credit." The CRA was created to fight "redlining," he practice of denying, or charging more for, banking services in certain neighborhoods due to their racial makeup, regardless of the actual riskiness of the loan. Ellen Seidman, who headed the Office of Thrift Supervision in the late 1990s, points out that the CRA does neither encourages nor condones bad lending.
Second, the CRA was not responsible for loosened loan standards that resulted in the 2008 financial crisis. In fact, loans subject to CRA regulations were less likely to default as loans made by lenders not subject to CRA regulations.
Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan made a statement Friday guaranteed to make liberal media members' heads spin.
During a discussion about Affirmative Action on PBS's McLaughlin Group, Buchanan said, "Whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
It may be a shocking thing to say on television, but is Buchanan right?
Actually, this isn't even the most shocking racial remark Buchanan has made this week. That honor goes to his Aug. 23 column, in which he praised segregated black schools for being "the transmission belts of patriotism and traditional values rooted in biblical truths and a Christian faith."
Farah Joins WND In Soft-Pedaling Cruz's Eligibility Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah begins his Aug. 22 WorldNetDaily column by whining, as he's wont to do:
Compare the media scrutiny Sen. Ted Cruz has received as a possible presidential candidate in 2016 to what happened in 2008 with Barack Obama.
It’s a day and night contrast.
Simply asking questions about Obama was labeled “racist.” It only got worse after he was elected. You might remember seeing me on TV news shows frequently in the years leading up to that election. Did you ever wonder why you don’t see me anymore? It’s because I raised this issue and became, as one wag characterized me, “the Birther King.”
Have you seen Jerome Corsi, a two-time New York Times No. 1 bestseller, on television much? Same thing. Corsi wrote “Where’s the Birth Certificate?,” which became the bestselling book in the nation before it ever was released. It’s what prompted Obama to release a badly manufactured simulation of an actual Hawaii birth certificate two years ago. He followed up with the e-book “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?” But this brilliant Harvard Ph.D. and senior staff writer for WND has become TV’s new Invisible Man ever since.
It couldn't possibly be that Corsi is a documentedliar as well as a crackpot, could it, Joe?
Farah then huffs:
Never mind that the only law enforcement investigation into Obama’s birth certificate found that it was a fraud and forgery. It didn’t matter. The media, besides WND, have steadfastly refused to report the facts for fear of being labeled part of the “birther” conspiracy.
It's not until the 10th paragraph of his column that Farah gets around to addressing the question he poses in his headline -- whether Ted Cruz is eligible to be president:
Now let me say this at the outset: I really like Ted Cruz. I think he would very likely make a fine president. But I think it’s important that we elect only those who are constitutionally eligible – those who fit the definition of “natural born citizens.”
Is he eligible?
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect not – at least not by my understanding of what the founders had in mind when they ratified the Constitution.
WND has been soft-pedaling eligibility issues about Cruz for a while now, and the fact that Farah can't muster a more definitive answer than "I don’t know for sure, but I suspect not" tells us that he really doesn't want to know the answer. If Cruz were a Democrat, we suspect Farah would not be as reticent.
Farah goes on to praise Cruz for having "quickly released his birth certificate," ignoring that Obama had released one quickly as well. Farah, however, did not announce any investigation to determine whether Cruz's birth certificate is genuine.
Farah then whines further about alleged lack of coverage about constitutional eligibility, "Maybe the media know how dishonest they’ve been all along and are afraid they will get called on it." Farah may very well be talking about himself.
MRC's Philbin To Bradley Manning: 'Rope Costs A Lot Less Than Surgery' Topic: Media Research Center
Matthew Philbin really wants Bradley Manning dead, especially now that he wants to become a woman named Chelsea.
Following in the trans-phobic ranting for which his employer, the Media Research Center, is becoming increasingly notorious for, Philbin tweeted: "So Bradley is Un-Manning? I imagine we're gonna be paying for that. They used to hang traitors. Rope costs a lot less than surgery."
But Philbin wasn't done denigrating Manning's sexual orientation. Philbin wrote in a follow-up tweet: "Dr Mr Prez, I'm a gay, tranny, anti-American peace activist. I check nearly every boz in yr base. Deny me pardon at yr peril."
Philbin is no stranger to making vicious personal attacks on anyone he disagrees with. You'll recall that he joined in the MRC's mocking of Sandra Fluke by calling her a "horizontal laborer" and "Lincoln Tunnel Hitcher" and claimed "I'm gonna send her a big Costco-sized box of condoms."
Buzzfeed Uncritically Repeats Aaron Klein's Propaganda For His Anti-Obama Book Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 20 Buzzfeed article by Ben Smith is little more than a press release for WorkldNetDaily reporter Aaron Klein's latest anti-Obama book, "Impeachable Offenses." Smith uncritically repeats Klein's assertion that there has been "unexpected demand from bookstores" for the book and WND editor Joseph Farah's unverified claim that booksellers have "place[d] large orders before the public weighed in" and that the book has presold 100,000 copies. Smith also lets Klein laughably frame his book as nonpartisan, despite the unambiguous right-wing anti-Obama agenda of both himself and his publisher-slash-employer.
What Buzzfeed -- or WND, for that matter -- won't tell you is the truth behind Klein's hype. One Twitter follower responded to Smith's claim that the book was "selling like hotcakes" by pointing out that at the time, it was ranked a mere 5,449 at Amazon.com. (As of this writing, it was ranked 4,618th in sales, still not quite hotcake territory and being far outsold by less scintillating tomes like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition.)
If WND is promoting Klein's book so dishonestly, it doesn't bode well for the veracity of the book's contents.
NewsBusters Really Wants You To Know That Karen Finney Is 'Half-Black' Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center has some weird issues with Democratic consultant Karen Finney's race. Earlier this year, MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham was annoyed that that MSNBC was promoting Finney as black and wondered if the "average viewer" would notice, following that up by tweeting a photo of Finney so we could judge for ourselves.
Now, Paul Bremmer has continued that weird obsession, using an Aug. 22 NewsBusters post to identify Finney as "the half-black host." Bremmer does not mention the issue of race anywhere else in his post, which makes the description stick out even more.
Finney has tweeted at NewsBusters seeking a response. National Journal reports that Bremmer declined comment bercause he's an intern, but he referred questions to ... Tim Graham.
Why WND's Latest Smear of Obama Can't Be Trusted Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 20 WorldNetDaily article proclaims that the Obama administration supports the Muslim Brotherood because President Obama's half-brother runs "oversight of the Muslim Brotherhood’s international investments." Here's why this claim should definitely not be trusted:
The story was written by Jerome Corsi, a known peddler of Obamafalsehoods and sleaze, and his first priority in writing any story about Obama is making sure it mkes the president look bad.
Home of Tepid Response to Limbaugh's Misogyny Mocks Tepid Response to Okla. Death Topic: NewsBusters
Tom Blumer uses an Aug. 22 NewsBusters post to mock Jesse Jackson's response to the killing of Christopher Lane in Oklahoma that "senseless violence is frowned upon." Under the headline "Jesse Jackson's Tepid Tweet," Blumer repeats various random Twitter responses calling Jackson's response "tepid" and"milquetoast."
Remember when Blumer's boss, Brent Bozell, couldn't muster anything more critical of Rush Limbaugh'sthree days of misogyny against Sandra Fluke than "Let's all agree Limbaugh crossed a line"?
The murder of the Australian man in Oklahoma was horrific, but not unique. Or even rare.
A similar episode of black mob violence happened just a few days ago in Memphis. And a few days before that in St. Paul. And before that in Burlington. And before that in Delaware, New Haven, Madison, Denver, Flint, Peoria, Springfield, Greensboro, Green Bay, and on and on and on.
This is a long list with more than 500 cases of recent black mob violence in more than 100 cities, big and small, many on video – and all unreported as being part of an epidemic of black mob violence throughout America.
But as we've pointed out, one of the accused killers in the Oklahoma case is most definitely not black (as pictured above). WND ultimately scrubbed its article on the shooting of references to the alleged killers' race (while, of course, failing to alert reader that the article was altered), but Flaherty apparently did not get the memo.
Flaherty isn't the only WND writer who is too busy race-baiting to care about the facts. Erik Rush wrote in his Aug. 21 WND column that "22-year-old Australian Christopher Lane was gunned down by three black youths in Duncan, Okla." He goes on to essentially blame Obama for Lane's death.
Heathers At NewsBusters Frown Upon Liberal Heathering Topic: NewsBusters
Randy Hall feels Kevin Drum's pain. He writes in an Aug. 20 NewsBusters post:
As conservatives, we know what happens every time we criticize the policies of the liberal occupant of the White House: We're instantly branded as “racist” and “intolerant” while our views are quickly and summarily dismissed.
However, Kevin Drum, a political blogger for the liberal Mother Jones website, has received similar treatment as he learned that no matter which side of an issue he supports, his mailbox on the Twitter social media website quickly fills up with emails from people taking the opposite view.
Drum described the situation by discussing reactions to policies of the National Security Agency from the “emo-progs” -- emotional progressives -- or the O-bots, people who believe that President Barack Obama can do no wrong.
“Conversely,” he noted, “if you criticize the NSA’s surveillance programs, your Twitter feed quickly fills up with equally hysterical proclamations from the O-bots that you hate Obama, you’ve always hated Obama, and you’re probably a racist swine who’s been waiting ever since 2009 for a chance to take down the nation’s first black president.”
Somebody is being criticized for showing insufficient fealty to a political agenda? Where have we seen taht before?
Oh, yeah -- at NewsBusters.
We call it Heathering, and NewsBusters loves to engage in it.Just the other day, in fact, NewsBusters executive editor Matthew Sheffield "defending" conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin as "not enough of a team player" for the conservative movement.
Gotta love how a major Heathering website is pointing and laughing at the Heathering of others.
Mr. Rubio apparently believes that the proper response to Obama’s tyranny is to implement his agenda, rather than to oppose and end his abuses in the constitutional way. If Rubio or Paul (or any other GOP leader) had true regard for the constitutional republic established by America’s founders, they would make it clear that the Obama administration’s lawless, anti-constitutional actions on every front demand impeachment and removal of the offenders. They would decry the Obama officials’ high crimes and misdemeanors. They would appeal to the people to vote for a majority in the U.S. House and Senate sufficient to impeach the abusers and remove them from office.
Instead of using the threat of Obama’s unconstitutional abuse of power to intimidate voters, as Rubio is attempting to do, they would mobilize voters to deploy the remedy for such wrongdoing the Constitution provides. They would rally them to vote exclusively for candidates who pledge that, as soon as possible after the new Congress convenes in January 2015, they will propose and vote for the impeachment and removal of all civil officers of the United States government cooperating in the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Obama administration; and that they will support no one for any leadership position in the U.S. House or Senate who has not pledged to do the same.
You promised “transparency,” sir, yet you’ve spent millions of our tax dollars to keep all your early school, travel and passport records hidden from the people who elected you – twice. WHY, SIR, WHY? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
Why did you put a fake supposed “copy of your birth certificate” on the White House website? All experts confirm that it isn’t a copy of anything; it’s a photoshopped fraud. WHY?
So, Mr. President, get down here and answer our questions! Bring Holder with you, and anyone else you can blame for your own directives. If you refuse, the American people, who have already learned to distrust anything you say, will determine if you are fit to continue holding your office. There are already bills of impeachment being drawn up, and if you think you can just ride roughshod over your constitutional equal, the Congress, you’re in for a big, big shock. You are not our boss – we are yours! We represent the American people who put us here.
Though I consider Lycurgus’ practices proto-fascism, just as applicable would be proto-Marxism, or progressivism, or liberalism, or socialism, or Darwinism, or environmentalism, etc., because historically all of these failed, evil, socialist worldviews demand an invidious racism, managed outcomes, social engineering, Social Darwinism, class/race eugenics, statism and collectivism designed by leftists to force society into the same, perpetual, globalist dystopia affecting most citizens.
Although he lived over 2,600 years before Karl Marx, the father of communism and socialism, I call Lycurgus a proto-Marxist (fascist) because Marx echoed the same pagan, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-capitalist insanity of Lycurgus, which causes me to conclude: As in the world of the Democratic Socialist Party that gave America the Progressive Revolution and the Age of Obama, so it is in the world of Darwin, Nietzsche and Marx who wrote, “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.”
Finally, there is good news in the Middle East. The Egyptian military, having removed the Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi after he and his terrorist group hijacked the democratic process, is now in the act of systematically destroying this Islamic cancer on the Arab state’s secular body politic. But the good news for Egypt and by extension Israel, its Jewish neighbor, is bad news for Barack Hussein Obama, our so-called “Muslim president.”
In a statement issued yesterday from the stronghold of the left, Martha’s Vineyard, where the “mullah in chief” is vacationing on our dime, Obama bellowed, “The United States strongly condemns the steps taken by the Egyptian interim government and security forces.” In so doing, Obama also canceled yearly and crucial national security joint defense exercises with the Egyptian military. This is an outrage; for once strong action is taken to snuff out the Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of all Islamic terrorist groups and the parent that houses al-Qaida, and our president condemns it, leaving no doubt where his loyalties lie – not that we needed any further proof after five years of his bowing down to Saudi kings, endorsing the Ground Zero Mosque, disrespecting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, doing all he can to harm Israel and a host of other anti-Semitic and anti-Christian actions by him and his administration. But this condemnation is the pinnacle of his pro-Muslim efforts to aid the Islamic revolution at the expense of Jews and Christians and our national security interests in the Middle East and worldwide.
Perhaps Obama fears what the Egyptian military has done to Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood because he knows that the American people and its military, who have been sacrificed to “win the hearts and minds” of the enemy, may one day rise up and oust him and his comrades. One can only pray – not to Allah, but to our Lord and Savior – that justice will be done and that We the People will soon be liberated from this modern-day pharaoh. While Obama’s political opposition is no Moses, we hold our own future in our hands and must act soon before all is lost.
Remember, Obama’s first coronation would never have occurred had former Clinton propagandist George Step-on-all-of-us not reminded the anointed during an interview that he was a “Christian,” not a Muslim. (Anyone who needs reminding is certainly neither.)
If the American colonists of 1776 had had the same attitude toward King George as the Republican Party leaders show towards would-be King Obama, we would all still be British subjects.
Criticize Obama’s policies? Yes, of course, they do that. But call his actions by the correct term – despotism – when he usurps congressional powers and imposes laws unilaterally by executive edict? No. They can’t use that word.
Draw up articles of impeachment citing his many unconstitutional acts? Unthinkable.
Criticizing Obama’s lawlessness without calling it what it is, unconstitutional and dictatorial, is like criticizing a bank robber as “anti-social” without bringing him to trial. He will probably ignore the criticism and go on robbing banks.
Obama will continue ignoring the constitutional separation of powers and continue expanding the reach of his administrative edicts as long as the Republican Party lets him get away with it. Why would he stop?
Unable to pull himself away from the pool, golf course or this week’s “body man,” Barack Obama on Thursday released a statement reiterating his support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Obama announced that the United States was cancelling its biannual joint military exercise with Egypt – which the Egyptians had already canceled.
This was Obama’s retaliation for the Egyptian military’s crackdown on the Brotherhood – despite the fact that the Brotherhood has been burning churches and terrorizing Christians all over Egypt. Instead of punishing the new regime, Obama should be thanking it, and the Egyptian protesters, for saving his administration from the disastrous consequences of Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt.
Americans cannot sanction a pro-Shariah president. Obama was elected not only to protect and defend America, but to lead the free world. He has abandoned that task. And the enemedia are an activist arm of the Obama administration. Too many Americans are woefully unaware of the catastrophic consequences of this rogue president. And America is in free-fall.
While the man who is president and his family luxuriate on Martha’s Vineyard for another of their sumptuous vacations, the rest of us Americans deal with the reality of life in 2013 – it isn’t pretty and it isn’t getting better.
Then there’s the supreme court of the state of New Mexico, which has just ruled that jurors there do not have to know how to speak, read or write English.
Spanish, English, Navajo – whatever!
I know justice is supposed to be blind, but it appears Obama and his ilk have managed to blindfold the Statue of Liberty, too.
In the purview of many blacks, color of skin trumps all else. It doesn’t matter that Obama is unequivocally the worst president in history, nor that empirical analysis supports that fact. It matters not at all to the majority of black Americans that for all the tears of joy shed because a color had been elected to the White House and along with all of the cheers of gleeful expectation that the color in the White House would swing open the gates of providence bestowing upon them the long-awaited gifts of fortune owed them, in actuality these very people are worse off today than at any time since the Carter administration.
Newsmax Rushes to Defend Reagan From 'The Butler' Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is apparently very upset that any media depiction of Ronald Reagan might be less than positive.
An Aug. 16 article by Paul Scicchitano highlights how "A biographer of former President Ronald Reagan said some scenes in 'Lee Daniels' The Butler' may amount to what he describes as "Hollywood malpractice" if they turn out to be based on anything other than facts":
Paul Kengor, who wrote two books about the late president: "The Crusader" and "God and Ronald Reagan," took particular issue with a scene in which Nancy Reagan invites White House butler Cecil Gaines and his wife to a dinner party only for the couple to feel out of place, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Kengor goes on to bizarrely claim that communism is worse than apartheid:
Kengor also told the Reporter that the film appears to depict President Reagan as racially insensitive and indifferent to apartheid.
“Ronald Reagan was appalled by apartheid, but also wanted to ensure that if the apartheid regime collapsed in South Africa that it wasn’t replaced by a Marxist-totalitarian regime allied with Moscow and Cuba that would take the South African people down the same road as Ethiopia, Mozambique, and, yes, Cuba,” Kengor said. “Clearly, blacks in South Africa lost rights under apartheid, but Communism was a far greater infringement . . . In Communist nations, people were literally lined up and slaughtered — and starved — on mass scales. Has everyone forgotten this?”
Newsmax followed that up with an Aug. 19 article by Andrea Billups featuring former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese defending the president's honor, an opinion unencumbered by actually seeing the film in question:
Meese, who currently serves as the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus at the Heritage Foundation, said he has not seen the film, but from what he has heard about the movie, the portrayal seems unfair.
"I think it is important for any president to be accurately portrayed, whether it is in books, in films, or on TV. Any disparagement or unfair treatment by a film like this is unfortunate," Meese said.
Billups also quotes Reagan biographer Craig Shirley endeavoring to defend Reagan's record on apartheid by echoing Kengor's claim that it wasn't as bad as communism:
Shirley said to Fox News that Reagan's views on South Africa must be judged in the context of the Cold War.
"The sanctions would have hurt the least affluent among the South Africans at the time, who were the blacks there," Shirley said. "The Zulu tribe, representing 6 million blacks, was vehemently opposed to the sanctions. … When Mandela came to power, one of the first things he asked for were the sanctions to be lifted. So it's a very complex issue and they present it [in the film] in a very simplistic fashion."
"Certainly as president, in terms of dealing with apartheid, he was absolutely opposed to apartheid," Meese told Newsmax. "He had some concern about the sanctions that were in place because of what it would do generally in terms of our position on the Cold War. But also he was concerned about the impact economic sanctions would have on the people of South Africa, including those people who happen to be people of color."
But that wasn't enough denunciation for Newsmax. An Aug. 21 article by John Gizzi features Reagan White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein also running to Reagan's defense:
"Ronald Reagan saw everybody as the same and was colorblind," Duberstein, who was Reagan's last chief of staff, said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax. "He accepted everyone for who they were and did not have a bad bone in his body."
As for Reagan's views on a person's race or ethnic heritage, Duberstein, who saw Reagan on an almost daily basis in his second term, said: "It's not something I ever heard him express a comment on, not ever."
"Look, I was Reagan's chief of staff and I'm a Jew from New York and General Powell was Reagan's national security adviser and he was a black from the South Bronx," Duberstein told Newsmax. "Doesn't that say it all?"
Actually, no, given that Newsmax has quoted only defenders of Reagan and no critics.
WND's Kupelian Does Not Like Cities, City Folk Topic: WorldNetDaily
You know you're in for a doozy of a piece when David Kupelian begins his Aug. 16 WorldNetDaily column by likening all big cities to Babel:
There is something a little strange about big cities.
The enigmatic biblical story of the tower of Babel revolves around this strange something that occurs when large numbers of people come together in one place and form a great hive.
It’s not that something bad has to happen – it doesn’t, especially if the people governing that city are highly principled and grounded in reality. But how often does that happen?
Kupelian ghoes on to cite "the abandonment of traditional Judeo-Christian values that has led to today’s devastating social, moral and financial corruption," which mostly happens in big cities.
This leads, inevitably to invoking the urban liberal/rural conservative divide with a map of presidential voting by county -- utterly irrelevant since people, not counties, vote for president -- and then perhaps not so inevitably to bashing transgenders:
My childhood home was just outside of D.C., in Montgomery County, Md., one of the most affluent and – especially today – ideologically progressive counties in the nation. To illustrate, Montgomery County has been in the news for passing county ordinances permitting men to frequent women’s restrooms if they “feel” that they are really women – you know, “inside.” Behaviors and “orientations” that a generation ago would have been regarded as both pathological and possibly criminal are today enshrined in law and culture alike. And such upper middle-class suburban communities that serve as enclaves for the federal government’s hundreds of thousands of well-paid employees – most of them liberal – serve as natural proving grounds for such wildly progressive policies.
Then, back to the utterly inevitable side, Kupelian blames the ills of big cities on liberals in general and Obama in particular:
The real reason America’s big cities are dragging the rest of the nation kicking and screaming into socialism is that, for decades, those cities have been run by arrogant, power-mad, progressive leftists. Want to know why Detroit looks like a war zone bombed by an enemy power? It’s because it has been run for so long by leaders like former Mayor Coleman Young, who reigned over Detroit for almost two decades. Young was secretly a member of the Communist Party USA – an organization loyal to an enemy power!
What on earth do we expect to happen when, instead of elevating worthy statesmen as leaders, we instead turn our cities over to parasitic unions and plundering politicians dedicated to tearing down everything America has traditionally stood for, everything that has made this nation – including her shining cities – the envy of the world?
What could be worse than turning our thriving metropolises, the engines of civilization and progress, over to corrupt leftist “progressives” – a euphemism for neo-Marxists – with no clue how to run a candy store, let alone a great city? The only thing worse would be to make the same mistake with the entire country – which of course is exactly what we have done in elevating a corrupt Chicago politician and leftist revolutionary to the presidency of the United States of America.
Where Did Noel Sheppard Get His Radio Ratings Numbers From? Topic: NewsBusters
Noel Sheppard writes in an Aug. 19 NewsBusters post:
NewsBusters reported Friday that counter to claims by the liberal media, conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity fired the Cumulus network due to his concerns about how the owners are managing their stations.
Data obtained by NewsBusters show that Hannity is actually right, and that in the key demographic of people aged 25 to 54, Cumulus has lost roughly 50 percent of its listeners since buying the stations in September 2011.
But where is Sheppard getting his numbers from? "Data obtained by NewsBusters" is utterly meaningless unless he provides a source.
Further, radio ratings tend to be proprietary and not publicly available -- one must pay to obtain that information. It's likely that Sheppard is violating somebody's confidentiality agreement by reporting these murky numbers.
That's one reason why Sheppard has left them so murky. Another reason might be that he obtained them from Hannity or his representatives, which would explain how they exclusively focus on denigrating Cumulus.
Because he won't tell us whose ratings numbers these are or how he got them -- and because he clearly has an agenda -- Sheppard's numbers simply can't be taken at face value. Yet people like Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator have done just that.
Given the many things for which Sheppard has had to issue corrections (and the many other things he has yet to correct), he has not earned that kind of trust.