Thursday, congressional Republicans held their long advertised hearing on the Benghazi scandal, calling as a witness none other than the “Wicked Witch of the Left,” Hillary Clinton. Fresh off of her presidential debate performance ironically held in “Sin City,” Las Vegas, Hillary, looking a bit worn, was confronted with questions about why newly released emails showed that she knew that the attack on the U.S. mission was the result of terrorists linked to al-Qaida, but instead lied to the families of the victims as well as the American public, blaming the attack on a video critical of the Prophet Muhammad.
This case, more than the hapless efforts of congressional establishment Republicans, could seal the fate of the Wicked Witch of the Left, much like the house that fell on the original evil witch in “The Wizard of Oz.” Hopefully, with God’s grace and divine justice, Hillary will soon be wearing a pair of red shoes in federal prison, and the nation and the world will be rid of this modern-day evil witch once and for all.
I’ve met liars worse than Hillary. I’ve known liars who never told the truth, including one famous hometown boy who told the truth once but he thought he was lying. But I don’t think I’ve ever met a liar as comfortable as Hillary.
At this point it doesn’t look like anything can stop the Clintons from returning to the White House. If none of our best interrogators can get anything to stick, no one can. She snookered them into holding the hearing in public so that she could pull out the sympathy card, firmly holding her head high as they “bullied” her. I’m sure she had months with an acting coach to pull that off.
Her nomination and eventual presidency has been a set up from the get-go. Anyone who doesn’t see it has to be blind, and the sad thing is that it doesn’t look like anything can be done about it. The fix has been in for years, and that’s why the Democratic Party has no viable candidate running except her. Jim Webb knows it, Chaffee knows it (both of whom have dropped out of the race), even Bernie Sanders knows that he is just there as a sham candidate. The media will continue its fake reporting, gushing over how wonderfully presidential she is and pretending that this is an actual election. As such, it’s obvious that there is nothing to stop this inevitable victory except an act of God.
Hillary Clinton’s performance art before Congress last week did not impress anyone who was not already inclined to slavishly adore her. While not quite as combative as her infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make?” testimony just a few months after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic installation in Benghazi, Clinton’s most recent appearance was every bit as brazen, obfuscating and deceitful.
It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments.
When those recommendations are made known, no ballot will bear her name.
Hillary’s political life has been a myriad of legal entanglements and behavior that at the very least border on treason and at the worst demands she be charged, found guilty and sentenced to prison for the maximum amount of time allowable under the law.
Hillary wants to be president, but she has proven herself incapable of restraint from alleged criminal behavior, going back to her time in Arkansas. She is a bitter harridan who has subverted justice and due process. I would also argue that she in concert with Obama suborned perjury in the aftermath of Benghazi.
Palin, Of All People, Blows Up A Key MRC 'Liberal Bias' Talking Point Topic: Media Research Center
Since the 2008 election, the Media Research Center has held as a cornerstone of "liberal bias" Katie Couric's 2008 interview with Sarah Palin, in which she could not give a coherent answer to Couric's simple question about what newspapers and magazines she read:
Tim Graham asserted that it "was designed as a 'gotcha' question to underline Palin's lack of worldly sophistication."
Brent Baker declared that the question was designed to show how "Palin is an ill-informed dolt."
A 2008 MRC report whined that media focus on Palin's inability to answer the question "left the impression that Palin was unable to identify any news sources because she isn’t interested in current events – an implausible supposition to make about an accomplished politician."
Lachlan Markay grumbled that the interview was "perhaps the left's favorite Palin-basing talking point."
Kyle Drennen sneered that Couric receiving an award for the interview was yet another testament to liberals celebrating liberal."
The MRC gave a platform to Palin fanboy John Ziegler, who dismissed the Couric interview as "bogus."Ziegler was also permitted to claim that Palin's "non-answer" to the question "has been totally misunderstood and misrepresented."
Graham also laughably suggested that Couric was "holding the microphone like a baseball bat" during the interview.
Noel Sheppard claimed that Couric was an "arrogant moderator doing his or her best to make the former Alaska governor look foolish" and insisted that the interview was a "hit job." Sheppard also grumbled: "So because Palin didn't answer that idiotic question by Katie Couric two years ago, morons in the media believe she doesn't read" and touted how Palin finally got around to answering the question some time later in Ziegler's fanboy documentary.
Well, toss all that out the window.
In an interview last week, Palin conceded that Couric's question on which publications she read was "a fair question" and that "I had a crappy answer" to it.
Unsurprisingly, the MRC has not posted this interview anywhere on its network of websites. They don't want to blow up one of their key talking points, after all.
So, let’s take stock: abandonment by his father, early Muslim training, toxic teen influences, hardcore Marxist indoctrination and Alinsky training, drug abuse (“Choom Gang”), association with criminals (Tony Rezko) and terrorists (William Ayers), racist religious affiliation (Jeremiah Wright), extreme political ambition and probable mental illness/disorder. Quite a cocktail that forms the current U.S. president’s worldview and sensibilities.
The question is not whether Obama is delusional or not – that is undeniable. The question is, in what frame of reference is he delusional – the narrow one Krauthammer cites, regarding Obama’s denial that radical Islam poses an existential threat to America and the world? Or the wider context of the rest of life? For when we widen our scope, we are forced to acknowledge that Obama gravitates toward evil and delusion not just with regard to the jihad threat, but in virtually every area: He wants to force 15-year-old girls to shower naked with boys who delusionally believe they’re girls. He intentionally allows our nation to be overrun with illegal aliens and legal “refugees” from cultures that hate America (today’s headline says of the Syrian refugees already in the U.S., 2,098 are Muslims and 53 are Christians). He annually releases tens of thousands of convicted criminal illegal aliens – we’re talking murderers, rapists and drug dealers – back onto American streets. He’s a radical proponent of what can only be called infanticide, the “aborting” of fully formed, full-term healthy human babies.
In every area, Obama demonstrates an unfortunate affinity for that which normal people would describe as destructive, corrupt, evil.
Whether this is because Obama is evil at his core, or whether there’s a decent person locked up inside but who has been traumatized and brainwashed – a Manchurian president, programmed not by exotic far-off communist brainwashers, but by a nonstop sequence of corrupting influences throughout his life – is not ours to know.
Ultimately, the question is largely academic. Whatever the ultimate explanation of Obama’s delusional presidency, he demonstrates at every turn a remarkable attraction for that which is destructive and corrupting to human life, that is, “evil.” And he is dragging America – and increasingly the world – through hell in search of it, which he somehow, however inexplicably, sees as good.
The list of potentially devastating and catastrophic threats seems almost endless when you start enumerating them.
In considering all of them, however, I came to an alarming conclusion.
The No. 1 threat to America’s national security has a name. It’s a person. It’s the de facto president of the United States at least until Jan. 20, 2017 – more than a year from now. The No. 1 enemy of this great experiment in self-governance and limited government under the rule of law and through the will of the people is none other than the man in the White House – Barack Obama.
I don’t make this assertion lightly.
I make it on the weighing of the evidence before us.
Would ISIS have a chance to spread its virus of death and mayhem throughout the free world without Obama’s incubation?
Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore
Could he do more to encourage radical Islam’s goals of imposing fear and asserting control through his policies of forced importation of tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of so-called “refugees” from the Middle East into the U.S. without screening against the kinds of people who attacked Paris last week?
When he accuses Republicans of spreading “fear and panic” by questioning the wisdom of this dictatorial plan imposed on an unwilling republic and sovereign states isn’t he actually and deliberately doing what he accuses his political opponents of doing?
Could I be right that America’s No. 1 national security threat is not named ISIS, not named Putin, not named al-Qaida or China or economic calamity but rather Barack Hussein Obama?
MRC Tries To Distract From New Film About Catholic Priest Sex Scandals Topic: Media Research Center
With the release of the film "Spotlight," about how the Boston Globe broke the story of systemic sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, the Media Research Center is trying to do what it always does when the subject pops up in the media: spin and change the subject.
The Catholic League's Bill Donohue -- who likes to falsely claim that the abusive priests were all gay -- takes a crack in a Nov. 6 NewsBusters post, complaining:
The media are pushing Spotlight, the movie that opens on Friday about the Boston Globe team that exposed priestly sexual abuse in the Boston Archdiocese prior to 2002. But there is little interest in this issue when non-Catholics are implicated in such crimes. As recent cases show, many courts around the nation evince disparate treatment as well.
Donohue then selectively recounts random, isolated cases of abuse from across the country. For instance:
In May 2014, Michael Travis, an assistant softball coach at a Nebraska high school was arrested for sexually assaulting two softball players. Two more alleged victims came forward in December. This past August, he cut a deal with prosecutors. He pleaded guilty to simple assault, and was told he would not have to register as a sex offender or spend a day in jail. It received little media coverage.
Actually, the case in question happened in Iowa, not Nebraska. Donohue doesn't mention that the plea deal was approved by the alleged victims because it would force Travis to surrender his teaching and coaching licenses and agree to never teach or coach again, or that some of the charges against Travis had to be thrown out because they took place before a law specifically outlawing the alleged behavior was enacted.
Donohue goes on to whine: "If any of these accused men had been a priest, both the media and the courts would have acted differently. This is not even debatable." But Donohue delierately omits the reason why the Catholic abuse cases were especially newsworthy, not just in Boston but in other dioceses as well: they were widespread, and church officials spent decades covering them up. Donohue cannot say that about any of the isolated cases he cites as a distraction.
(On the other hand, kudos to the MRC for disclosing at the top of Donohue's post that MRC chief Brent Bozell is a member of the Catholic League's board of advisers, which it didn't do until we started pointing it out.)
Then, in a Nov. 15 post, MRC official Tim Graham sneers that the film "claims to be an accurate representation of the Boston Globe's Pulitzer Prize-winning crusade in 2001 and 2002 against clerical sex abuse in the Catholic Church," then goes into distraction mode by also falsely playing the blame-the-gays card:
Surely, it's a true story that there were monsters disguised as men of God that abused children. But it's also true that there are contrary facts that this reporter-boosting movie excluded, like the gay-activist priests that the Globe promoted in its pages -- until it turned out their gay liberation was unleashed on children.
The headline of Graham's post reads, "WashPost Critic: Heroic Liberal Reporter Movie Like 'Watching Porn'." But Graham gets this wrong too: As the excerpt he uses makes very clear, the Washington Post critic is actually quoting someone else saying that.
Graham's manufactured freakout over that statement is odd, since he apparently wasn't offended by his boss, Brent Bozell, creepily called Republican ranting about media bias "better than sex."
WND Doctor Still Pushing Discredited Filthy-Illegals Smear Topic: WorldNetDaily
Elizibeth Lee Vliet, former director of the right-wing Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, has long hurled screeds warning against disease-ridden illegal immigrants, usually containing misleading or false information, and WorldNetDaily has given her that platform.
Vliet strikes again in a Nov. 11 WND column cheering on Donald Trump's fearmongering about illegal immigrants:
Donald Trump is right about this: Illegal immigration is one of the most serious threats to national security, American sovereignty and economic stability.
Even Trump, however, has not yet addressed the even more serious medical dangers of illegal immigration for Americans.
Invisible travelers coming across the border with the people: bacteria like tuberculosis (TB), viruses such as EVD-68 that killed so many U.S. children in 2014, Ebola, West Nile, dengue fever, parasites and fungal illnesses.
Delays in access to medical services for Americans with longer waits to see doctors, especially for Medicaid patients.
Long waits in emergency rooms jammed with illegals waiting for care at U.S. taxpayer expense.
The vastly higher costs for states to cover Medicaid services designed to provide medical care for low-income American citizens, but now expanded to serve those here illegally as well.
Given that we've already documented that the enterovirus EVD-68 outbreak of last year was not caused by illegal immigrants, it's likely she's overstating the rest of this as well. Indeed, nobody is bringing Ebola across the Mexican border.
Vliet goes on to rant about how "TB in the U.S. is mostly an “imported” disease brought by people coming from countries where it is widespread, unlike the U.S.," making sure to emphasize that "foreign-born people" are primarily spreading it. in fact, there is no epidemic of tuberculosis -- or any of the other communicable diseases Vliet rants about -- on the southern border.
It's important to remember that Vliet and the AAPS have no interesting in truth or accuracy when issuing their anti-immigrant screeds. Remember that back in 2003, an AAPS journal article (which purports to be peer-reviewed) asserted that leprosy cases in the U.S. -- a complete lie. To our knowledge, the AAPS has never issued a correction of the article, and the original aricle is still available at the AAPS website.
Because she insists on putting fearmongering over facts, there's simply no reason to believe anything Vliet says on medical issues.
At The MRC, Reporting The News Is A 'Liberal Outburst' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is so terrible as a group of media analysts, it seems that it largely has to find "liberal media bias" where it doesn't exist.
Example: Geoffrey Dickens' Nov. 14 attack on CBS' Nancy Cordes in advance of her co-hosting a Democratic presidential debate. His title: "CBS Debate Co-Moderator Nancy Cordes’ Worst Liberal Outbursts." Let's take a look at what he claims is a "liberal outburst":
-- "Cordes Shocked GOPers Criticize 'Undisputed Front-Runner' Hillary Clinton": Actually, all Cordes is doing is doing a debate preview in which she notes that Republicans targeted Hillary at their last debate. She expressed no shock whatsoever about this in the video clip accompanying the item.
Vox.com pointed out the game the MRC is playing here: "The conservative media watchdog site Newsbusters has convinced itself that this banal recap she did of the fourth GOP debate exhibits liberal media bias, so be on the lookout for post-debate complaints about her questioning almost regardless of what she actually says."
-- "Carly Fiorina Is Just as Neanderthal as the Men": Cordes notes that Fiorina claims that Hillary won't be able to play the "gender card" against her if she gets the Repubican nomination, then adds taht "many so-called women’s issues ... Fiorina’s views are identical to the men she shared the stage with last night." Cordes did not use the word "Neanderthal"; Dickens is putting words into her mouth.
-- "How is Next House Speaker Going to Deal with 'Knucklehead' Conservatives?" Cordes is not calling House conservatives in her question to outgoing House Speaker John Boehner; he's noting that Boehner himself called them that. That isn't "liberal bias."
-- "Preparing to Blame Conservatives for Any Lack of Progress." This is a question from Cordes to Boehner after the 2014 election, in which she notes that some conservatives "don’t think you’re conservative enough." Given that there has, in fact, been little progress in Congress due in no small part to conservative refusal to compromise, and that Boehner quit as House speaker in part because he was under attack by conservatives who didn't think he was "conservative enough," Cordes seems rather prescient here.
-- "Fretting Obama Will Lose a Vital Critic from the Left." Dickens provides no evidence of "fretting"; Cordes is simply pointing out in this 2011 quote -- yes, Dickens apparently had to go back that far to find a suitable "liberal outburst" -- that Anthony Weiner, who had just gotten caught in personal scandal that would force him to resign his House seat, is a liberal who wasn't afraid to criticize Obama. Again, that's not "liberal bias."
Most of what Cordes is quoted doing here is reporting the news. That Dickens and the MRC thinks these are "liberal outbursts" says much more about the MRC's highly distorted vision of what reporting is.
Meanwhile... Topic: WorldNetDaily
We take to Huffington Post to do an overview of the extremist and birther background of Aaron Klein, who has jumped from WorldNetDaily to run Breitbart's new Jerusalem website. Read more >>
MRC Is Mad Media Won't Take Obama Quote Out of Context Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Rsearch Center loves to complain about the media taking people out of context -- at least when it's not taking people out of context itself. Now, the MRC is complaining that the media won't take President Obama out of context.
The obvious pull quote of the day from President Obama's contentious press conference in Antalya, Turkey is this statement: "What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with ..." Obama then claimed that any ideas coming from those who believe in such a notion have "no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region."
Ed Driscoll at PJ Media believes that these words are "the president’s equivalent of Carter’s malaise speech" in the 1970s. Just in case he's right, related stories at the Associated Press and the New York Times have not mentioned Obama's statement, a clear indicator of his lack of genuine resolve, in their coverage.
Actually, if you put Obama's comment in its full context of his entire answer to the question he was asked -- something Blumer clearly has no interest in doing -- the president's reference to "some notion of American leadership or America winning" was clearly intended as a reference to an empty gesture done solely for posturing and which would not advance America's interest in the fight against terrorism, since he goes on to state (after Blumer cut it off) that such a posturing gesture "has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people" and that he to pursue what actually works.
But Blumer doesn't want to tell you about that, since it undermines the petty partisan sniping of his post.
Is Jesse Lee Peterson Secretly A White KKK Leader? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Read the following:
Dear white people: your days are numbered
This has been a brutal couple of weeks for those with white skin.
It started with a three-ring circus at the University of Missouri, another landmark in the slow death of white America. And it drew to a close with the actual deaths of scores of French citizens.
The University of Missouri will never be the same now.
Weak, liberal whites have created monsters in their schools. The monsters are now eating them, and threatening to eat others.
By Thursday, chaos reigned across the country as students protested their schools and called for heads to roll.
The situation will not get better until white Americans put an end to it. In fact, it will only get worse.
And with clear evidence that white Americans are standing by as their country is going down in flames, Friday evening we heard news of the Paris attacks and concert hall massacre of mostly white French by Muslim terrorists.
Somewhere along the way, whites in Europe and America have lost their connection to God and have decided to give up defending their communities and freedoms. Europe has been in the process of handing their continent over to Muslims. And white Americans are handing over their country to black malcontents – and Muslims. Friday it was reported that the first wave of Syrian immigrants had arrived in New Orleans. Where was Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal to stop this? Where are the protests from outraged Americans?
If you stand up against the bullies – whether they’re radical black bullies on campuses, or Islamic bullies, they will go sit down.
But if you act with fear, they will run over you and your children.
You can’t prove anything to angry people. You just have to speak up, be honest and live your life. Telling the truth and setting a living example is the only way to change anything for the better.
The greatest civilizations in the world are being destroyed by the godless.
The godless have not been raised by decent parents. They’re looking for love in all the wrong places, and in the wrong way. And now they’re destroying the free world.
It’s time for whites in America, and in Europe, to stop the madness. If it isn’t stopped, your way of life – and possibly your life itself – will be stopped.
Who does it sound like wrote this? A leader of the Ku Klux Klan who believes in white supremacy?
If these words had come from the pen of a white KKK leader, he would be universally rejected and condemned. But because it is Peterson saying it, he gets a pass (just like fellow WND columnist Mychal Massie).
Even more laughably, WND -- who's publishing his latest book as well as giving him a weekly column -- is trying to market Peterson as a "civil rights leader." Would any actual "civil rights leader" say such things?
Peterson leads nobody in the civil rights movement; he has no constituency other than white right-wingers who know he says the things that would be too racist for them to say.
Sadly, it seems that being a proxy for white racists is something Peterson actually appears to want to be.
MRC 'Study' Says It's 'Labeling Bias' To Refer To Conservatives As 'Conservatives' Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has long had a verystrange and ridiculous quirk in its "liberal media bias" business model: it regularly complains that it's somehow biased for media organizations to refer to "conservatives when reporting on conservatives.
Now, it claims to have an entire study based on complaining that it's "labeling bias" to call a conservative a conservative, at one point even complaining that it's "heavy-handed" to do so.
Rich Noyes wrote about this so-called study in an Oct. 28 NewsBusters post, to which he referred in a Nov. 7 post:
From September 25 to October 23, MRC analysts reviewed all 82 ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news stories about John Boehner’s resignation as House Speaker and the race to succeed him. CBS provided the most coverage (31 stories, totaling 54 minutes of airtime). NBC was next (30 stories, 38 minutes), followed by ABC, which aired just 21 stories (24 minutes) on its morning and evening newscasts during this period.
In these stories, MRC analysts documented how network reporters assigned a whopping 106 ideological labels to House Republicans — either to individual members of Congress, or factions within the GOP.
Overwhelmingly, the networks used “conservative” tags to talk about Republicans. Fully 98 percent of these labels (104) talked about “conservatives” or those “on the right;” just two referred to either “moderate” Republicans or a “mainstream” Republican (that would be Representative Kevin McCarthy, according to ABC’s Martha Raddatz on the September 27 Good Morning America).
One-third of the conservative labels (35) painted the targets as somehow extreme: “far right,” “hardline,” “very conservative” or “ultra-conservative.” Such deliberate labeling is designed to stigmatize conservatives, casting them as outside-of-the-mainstream ideologues, as compared to their (usually unlabeled) adversaries.
Noyes, however, fails to concede that such ideological labeling is relevant, given that Boehner's resignation was driven by conservative Republicans, who cheered the news. He also can't be bothered to review, say, Fox News to offer a comparison of how the word "conservative" is used on a conservative-friendly network. Which makes this about as meaningless as most other MRC studies.
Noyes whined that the House Freedom Caucus of farther-right conservativfes were, in fact, described as being farther right:
According to its mission statement, the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives stands for “limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law.” While the group has clearly generated a debate among conservatives about specific political tactics, there’s nothing radical about the group’s obviously mainstream conservative positions.
Network reporters also assured audiences that, despite the misgivings of some conservatives, there is no reason to doubt Paul Ryan’s conservative credentials. On the October 9 Today show, NBC’s Willie Geist said Ryan was “highly respected among conservatives and Republicans on the Hill.” Then on the October 21 Evening News, CBS’s Cordes insisted Ryan “should be a conservative’s dream Speaker.”
Noyes didn't mention that Ryan couldn't get the 80 percent support from the Freedom Caucus that would have generated an automatic endorsement from the group. Nor does he explain why Freedom Caucus members are justified in rejecting him as speaker.
Noyes bizarrely decries use of the word "conservative" in the media as away to "marginalize conservatives." It's very confused logic. At no point does he offer a term that would be somehow less marginalizing -- perhaps because he's using the word himself.
Newsmax's Ruddy Defends O'Reilly Over Reagan Book, Says Will Should Quit Fox Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax editor and CEO Christopher Ruddy has had enough of the feud between Bill O'Reilly and George Will over O'Reilly's book "Killing Reagan" -- and he taking O'Reilly's side.
In a Nov. 11 column, Ruddy notes that Newsmax has published criticism of O'Reilly's book from historians like Craig Shirley over O'Reilly's suggestion that Ronald Reagan was not fully engaged during the finalyears of his administration, but fawns over Reagan being "a lion, a great visionary who created the greatest economic boom in American history as he brought down the Soviet Empire" and adds, "I would take an 80 percent Reagan over a 100 percent Obama any day."
Ruddy then complains about Will's "seemingly personal jihad against O'Reilly":
Will has gone well beyond offering legitimate criticisms of the book. He has attacked O'Reilly’s integrity as a journalist. O'Reilly stated during their TV exchange last week that Will had agreed to speak with him by phone before he completed his article on the book.
Interestingly, Will accuses O'Reilly of not talking to people involved before publishing his book.
While I have disagreed with O'Reilly on numerous issues through the years, I don't think that there's any evidence he is a person that seeks to mislead people or is an “expert” in such activity, as Will asserts.
O’Reilly is probably one of the most highly-scrutinized media figures of our time. While he sometimes has strong and passionate opinions, he has always been a straight shooter and fair-minded.
Criticism of O'Reilly's book is totally appropriate. But Will’s primary assertion that O'Reilly is “something of an expert on willfully misleading people” and guilty of “extreme recklessness” is simply not substantiated by the contents of O'Reilly's book or his long track record as a media personality.
But O'Reilly has no "integrity as a journalist," and he does have a track record of misleading people. This is, after all, a guy who cited "The Paris Business Review," a publication that doesn't exist, to claim success in a boycott of France, and he has misled about reporting from a combat zone during the Falklands War. Further, O'Reilly's previous book on John F. Kennedy's death contains a false claim about the purported suicide of one of the figures in the case. Ruddy can read more about O'Reilly's actual track record here if he'd like.
Nevertheless, Ruddy concludes his column with how he would handle Will:
I run my own network. It's called Newsmax TV and we encourage a healthy dialogue among anchors, commentators and guests. Disagreements make for great television. But what George Will said crossed the line.
If George Will was a paid commentator on my network and made such claims about our lead news host, I would have promptly gotten Will on the phone.
Here's how the brief conversation would have gone: "George, you are a respected columnist and I respect your opinions. You have every right to criticize Bill and his book. He knows you do and he had the cojones to put you on his own show to hear them out. But you did something more than that.
"You went after him personally and said he's a liar, and that he's made a career of misleading the public. You have used other outlets to attack him. If you feel so strongly about our lead news host, shouldn't you just do the honorable thing and resign from the network?"
After that I would expect Will would do the decent thing and resign from a network where he collects a nice paycheck, in part, thanks to the very host he is crusading against. If he didn’t quit, I would terminate his contract, killing George Will.
End of story.
Interestingly, Ruddy doesn't say he would investigate the veracity of the claims before reflexively defending his host and firing Will.
ConWeb Censors GOP Candidates At 'Kill The Gays' Conference Topic: The ConWeb
Last weekend, Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal all spoke at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Iowa, hosted by anti-gay pastor Kevin Swanson. How anti-gay is Swanson? During his wildly ranting speech at the conference, he called for gays to be executed. Swanson also introduced Cruz, Huckabee and Jindal to the stage for their speeches.
But if you read the ConWeb, you wouldn't know anything about what happened at this conference.
There was some promotion of the speech on the ConWeb beforehand; for instance, it was advertised at WND beforehand -- and, strangely, well after it ended; the above screenshot was taken on Nov. 13. The Media Research Center attempted a little damage control before the event, with both NewsBusters and CNSNews.com highlighting Cruz being asked on CNN if he is “endorsing conservative intolerance” by appearing at the conference. But the MRC would only describe Swanson as an "activist pastor," playing down his well-documented anti-gay history.
But after the conference? Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada.
Not a word at NewsBusters, though it did publish a post referencing Jeremiah Wright, who did not avocate the killing of an entire group of people. Even the MRC couldn't be aroused enough to complain about Maddow highlighting the event.
Even Accuracy in Media -- home of noted homophobe Cliff Kincaid, who actually supported the proposed "kill the gays" bill in Uganda -- hasn't said a word about Republican candidates lending their support to, and receiving it from, a pastor who supports executing gays.
To demonstrate how radioactive Swanson currently is, WND columnist (and noted gay-basher) Michael Brown distanced himself from Swanson and the event -- but not at WND. He penned his distancing at fringe right-wing site BarbWire, run by professional gay-basher Matt Barber. Brown even ran to the defense of the andidates, claiming that "I also feel confident that, had they known in advance what Kevin Swanson, the conference’s chief organizer, planned to say, they would not have attended the rally."
The ConWeb's silence on Swanson's hateful remarks , and on Republican presidential candidates who are effectively condoning that hate by appearing with the man who spewed it, tells us the underlying anti-gay nature of the ConWeb. But you knewthatalready.
Slowly, the truth is being unearthed for the world to see, and this is that Barack Hussein Obama and his Cabinet, past and present, are war criminals of a particularly malevolent order.
In the interest of restoring the republic however, it is imperative that Obama and his sordid pantheon of demons are not allowed to cheerfully pass the torch to the next equally corrupt administration in January 2017. They all must be brought to justice, and in a very public way, whatever the cost.
Chaos is on the rise in our cities. And I blame Barack Obama for stoking it. He has opened the gates of hell on America.
There are reasons to destabilize cities. Far left politicians like Obama know that good men and women won’t vote for them. So why not populate cities with those who will help bring their “change”?
Another reason to destabilize a city is to use its debased condition as an excuse to take guns from law-abiding citizens – the main opposition to tyrants.
One of the “best” ways to destabilize a city is to place its police department under federal control. Enter Obama’s 21st Century Policing program, with its goal of body cameras on cops and civilian (i.e.: often troublemaker) review boards.
ALERT, America! Had this been an actual presidency, your beloved nation would not be in this cleverly and dastardly engineered suicidal downward spiral to hell. Had this been a real presidency, the words and policies emanating from your White House and from most of your elected employees would not sound like rejected nonsense from Alfred E. Neuman too loony to be found in the pages of Mad Magazine.
Had enough real Americans performed their basic “we the people” responsibilities to monitor, guide and prod our elected employees to strictly adhere to their oath to the U.S. Constitution, to remain in touch with common sense, logic and perform but a modicum of professional accountability, we would have never allowed the psychopathic liar in chief and his gang of commie goons to continually run amok with their America-hating “fundamental transformation” of what was at one time the greatest country ever found on earth.
Although average American news viewers remain blissfully ignorant of this, Europeans have been turning out by the thousands in protest of their governments’ intention to throw the doors open wide to innumerable Muslim refugees from regions in which Barack Hussein Obama’s mercenary army (otherwise known as ISIS or Islamic State) and other militant Islamists have made life as they know it untenable.
Regular readers will take it as given that Barack Hussein Obama’s design of inundating America with Muslims is but one component in his grand plan of sabotage, and that he is also doing the bidding of malignant globalist interests that have long wished to see America brought low.
Now, in the last couple of weeks President Obama has sent 50 Special-ops troops into Syria! Why? This man should not be trusted with our military! His wrongful decisions on foreign policy has lead to millions being displaced in the Middle East, Christians being virtually wiped out by ISIS, and our soldiers and allies dying without a just cause.
President Obama hasn’t avoided war! He’s set the stage for World War III, and it’s time Americans knows it.
The first step in that: Attacking President Obama for not immediately blaming Islam in his initial statement condemning the attack.
WND does so forthrightly in a Nov. 13 article by Douglas Ernst in an article headlined "Obama leaves 'Islam' out of Paris terror statement":
All the hallmarks of Islamic terror attacks in Paris, France, on Friday weren’t enough to convince President Obama it would be prudent to use the word “Islam.”
Obama used Friday’s address to condemn the attempt “to terrorize innocent civilians,” but refused to specifically identify the Islamic element of extremist groups.
Ernst did note that Obama's statement was made while the attacks were still going on and that he said "until we know from French officials that the situation is under control, and we have for more information about it, I don’t want to speculate." But Ernst attacks him anyway.
At CNS, Susan Jones manages to demonstrate her organization's word-counting obsession and put words (parenthetically) in Obama's mouth while still zinging the president forrefusing to blame all of Islam for the actions of terrorists ina Nov. 14 article:
President Obama, speaking as the attacks in Paris were still ongoing, used the word "terrorist" or "terrorize" seven times, and the word "extremist" once, in his brief remarks on the situation Friday evening.
"I don’t want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this," he said. "It appears that there may still be live activity and dangers that are taking place as we speak."
Nevertheless, Obama went on to describe the attacks as a clash of values: "human progress" on one hand (Western values), and a "hateful vision" (radical Islam) on the other:
Jones probably wouldn't describe Scott Roeder, who murdered abortion doctor George Tiller, as "Christian" despite his claiming to act on Christian principles, so why should she assume that all Muslims approve of ISIS?
MRC Whines About Comedian 'Exploiting' Paris Attacks, Ignores Right-Wingers (And MRC Employee) Doing Same Thing Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Geoffrey Dickens got his dudgeon up in a hurry in a Nov. 13 NewsBusters post:
Disgusting! Comedian Michael Ian Black Exploits Paris Attack
Actor/comedian Michael Ian Black wasted no time, on Friday, exploiting the Paris attack as he tweeted within an an hour of the breaking news: "Awful, awful, awful news in Paris. 18 shot dead. If only we could get our daily shootings down to 18 here in America."
This isn't the first time the member of the '90s comedy improv group The State and star of the cult flick Wet Hot American Summer propagandized for gun control. After the Roseburg, Oregon shooting in October he raged: "Another massacre. Don’t wait to talk about it. Gun control now."
Dickens, however, has remained silent on right-wingers exploiting the attack. Like Newt Gingrich:
And Dickens' very own MRC co-worker, Dan Joseph (h/t Chastity):
That's probably not "disgusting" at all to Dickens. Right-wing expoitation of a tragedy is perfectly fine at the MRC, it appears.