Tag Archives: Media bias

Top 10 Corrupt Politicians of 2009

Tax cheat Charlie Rangel

The government watchdog group Judicial Watch has released their Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians for 2009.  The results are not terribly surprising to people who pay attention.  They provide clear and detailed reasons for each, but I will only provide their list in condensed form.  Check out their full list here.  Note that the list is in alphabetical order, or Charlie Rangel would certainly not be #10!

  1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT).  The Senator from CountryWide.
  2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV).  Philandering and bribery for associated coverups.
  3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA).  Incredibly corrupt, and a key player in the economic crash.
  4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner.  Tax cheat.
  5. Attorney General Eric Holder.  Dropped charges against already-convicted Black Panthers, refuses to investigate ACORN.
  6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL).  The purchase of Obama’s vacant Senate seat.
  7. President Barack Obama. “Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors – this is Obama’s “ethics” record — and we haven’t even gotten through the first year of his presidency.”
  8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).  Lying about what she knew about waterboarding, among other things.
  9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).  “Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills.”
  10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).  Tax cheat and abuse of power.

As you can see, nine out of ten are Democrats.  Can you say Culture of Corruption?  One wonders how much coverage this corruption would get if the politicians were Republicans.

Watch This Heated ClimateGate Debate

Hat tip to Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters.

Mr. Sheppard links to a 10 minute long heated debate between a British climate change skeptic (he would call himself a sceptic) and a Russian UN IPCC contributor.  Watch the video, but I have also included some key quotes from the skeptic that Sheppard listed.

Sheppard’s bullet points:

  • The case [for anthropogenic global warming] is blown to smithereens [by this scandal], and this whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and Copenhagen conference should be closed.
  • The world is cooling and has been cooling for seven years, and the leading scientists, so-called “scientists,” have been trying to hide that evidence.
  • The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground.
  • The Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped.
  • There is a gigantic bandwagon run by governments who want to control world energy supplies and hold back development in the third world. This thing they are doing now is just the same as they are doing in the banking crisis, it is creating a whole bubble of false values.
  • Their claims are false, I repeat, they are false, and this theory they’ve got is like the Titanic and it will crash. I would suggest that honest green campaigners who want to preserve biodiversity should get off this [man-made global warming] bandwagon before it sinks.
  • Carbon dioxide levels are driven by temps, not the other way around. There have been big peaks in CO2 in past…carbon dioxide is actually a good thing for the world…More CO2 makes plants and animals more efficient.

Think you’ll see that kind of debate on non-Fox television any time soon?

Yes, that was a rhetorical question.

I highly recommend following @NoelSheppard on Twitter.  Additionally, if you are a conservative and you are not on Twitter yet, you are missing out on the best vehicle for information dissemination that exists today.  Please sign up and follow Mr. Sheppard, and you can follow me as well at @RobWaterson and @WarOnSocialism.

Three Key Points About ClimateGate

[Hat tip to the always spot-on Hot Air]

Writing over at Pajamas Media, Iain Murray points out the three most important things to know about what is now being called ClimateGate:

First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.

So when people mock you about being a denier, remember that their entire Climate Change belief system was largely constructed by these same dishonest, “proper result”-driven scientists.

Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).

So they are big about calling for peer review, but they attack peers who review things in ways that they do not like.  Real science requires letting people attempt to poke holes in your theory, but these High Priests of the Church of Climate Change fight back when people do just that.

Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

They discuss hiding data and deleting emails in order to evade FOIA requests.  Unbelievable.

Showing that the True Believers are circling the wagons, Newsbusters is reporting that the only TV news outlet reporting on this historic scandal is Fox News:

The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.Despite last Friday morning’s bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world’s leading global warming alarmists — many with direct ties to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.

LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.

Having never believed in this junk science hoax, one of my main concerns has always been the long term effects of this political “science”.  When something legitimate comes along that does warrant a warning from [more legitimate] scientists, people will remember this bogus, political Global Warming hoax and will ignore the scientists.

Denial is Not Just a River in Egypt

From the very beginning of the Fort Hood shooting story the media went into Muslim Apologist Mode.  After watching reporting on Fox News for a while, I tuned into World News Tonight and was treated to glaring examples, including Brian Ross’ need to pass along the claim that the shooter had been called a “camel jockey”.  Over the course of the next 24 hours we all saw several other reporters lament (and then repeat) that they were sorry that the shooter’s name was not Smith.  In the media’s desperate attempt to call it anything other than muslim-related terrorism we were even introduced to the preposterous notion that the shooter actually had Pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

As Stuart Smalley (the only funny thing that so-called comedian ever did) said, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt”.

There is no shortage of people who immediately called this what it was: a terrorist attack.  Lt. Col. Ralph Peters typically did not mince words in his analysis:

Ralph PetersBut to call this an act of terrorism, the White House would need an autographed photo of Osama bin Laden helping Hasan buy weapons in downtown Killeen, Texas. Even that might not suffice.

Islamist terrorists don’t all have al Qaeda union cards in their wallets. Terrorism’s increasingly the domain of entrepreneurs and independent contractors. Under Muslim jurisprudence, jihad’s an individual responsibility. Hasan was a self-appointed jihadi.

Yet we’re told he was just having a bad day.

But too many reporters immediately rushed to treat us all like adolescent potential KKKers.  Proving the old adage about the acorn-finding blind squirrel, even NYT columnist David Brooks got this one right when he wrote of A Rush To Therapy:

David BrooksMajor Hasan was portrayed as a disturbed individual who was under a lot of stress. We learned about pre-traumatic stress syndrome, and secondary stress disorder, which one gets from hearing about other people’s stress. We heard the theory (unlikely in retrospect) that Hasan was so traumatized by the thought of going into a combat zone that he decided to take a gun and create one of his own.

There was a national rush to therapy. Hasan was a loner who had trouble finding a wife and socializing with his neighbors.

This response was understandable. It’s important to tamp down vengeful hatreds in moments of passion. But it was also patronizing. Public commentators assumed the air of kindergarten teachers who had to protect their children from thinking certain impermissible and intolerant thoughts. If public commentary wasn’t carefully policed, the assumption seemed to be, then the great mass of unwashed yahoos in Middle America would go off on a racist rampage.

That patronizing attitude seems to be par for the course from the American media.  But that is not the point that needs making, which is simply that this level of feel-good political correctness has no place in the US Army.  Col. Peters also points out some disturbing affirmative action programs in the Army that could have played a role in this officer’s promotions in the face of obvious problems and bad reviews.

A dirty big secret in our Army has been that officers’ promotion boards have quotas for minorities. We don’t call them quotas, of course. But if a board doesn’t hit the floor numbers, its results are held up until the list has been corrected. It’s almost impossible for the Army’s politically correct promotion system to pass over a Muslim physician.

George Casey - Reuters

From Reuters

But the public statement that shocked me the most and has stayed in my mind came straight from the mouth of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, who actually said what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here”.  Seriously, he actually said that the deaths of 13 people would be less of a tragedy than damage to the beloved D-word.

“what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.” – Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey

Both articles close with indictments.  Brooks says of America’s initial reaction:

It denied, before the evidence was in, the possibility of evil. It sought to reduce a heinous act to social maladjustment. It wasn’t the reaction of a morally or politically serious nation.

And Peters is even more blunt:

Just as we’d expect the Army to get rid of a disruptive white supremacist, we need to cashier anyone who espouses violent Islamist extremism — as Maj. Hasan did, again and again.

We won’t. Because Islamist terrorism doesn’t exist. Just ignore the dead and ask our president.

 Read Brooks’ Op-Ed here and Peters’ Op-Ed here.

Brent BozellUPDATE: Brent Bozell wrote a good article on this as well, reminding me of Bob Schieffer’s attempt at drawing moral equivalency between this act and some nameless Christian “nuts”.  Read Bozell’s take on it here.

Charles Gibson: Spinning for Obama

ABC News Anchor Charles Gibson

ABC News Anchor Charles Gibson

On Monday night Charles Gibson continued doing his tough job of spinning for the Obama administration.  After starting with Jake Tapper’s report on the health care debate, anchor Gibson did what he has done time and time again: spin horrible economic news positively for the Obama administration.  On the October 12th World News Tonight, Gibson said this:

Most economists say the recession is over and a recovery is underway.  That’s the view of 80 percent of experts in a survey by the National Association for Business Economics.

Then Gibson immediately moved on to other news.  As so often seems the case, Mr Gibson only reported the shred of data that could conceivably look good for Obama: the fact that 80 percent felt that the recession is over.  Given that this is a survey done by an organization that has been around for fifty years, one would expect that they would ask more than one question, perhaps gleening more than one simple data point.  Lo and behold, that does appear to be the case!

First, look at this graph, drawn from the results of the survey’s question asking when the jobs would return:

CNN Money chart_job_recovery

Note that only a total of 7.7 percent of the economists surveyed believed that we would recover the lost jobs by the end of 2011, more than two years from now!  I am just a programmer who spent 10 minutes doing internet research to find this data but I would argue that it is highly pertinent to the intentionally shallow story peddled by Mr. Gibson about the rosy end of the recession.

A cynical person could safely assume that Mr. Gibson simply cherry-picked the news that was good for President Obama and left out the parts that were not good for Mr. Obama.  In fact, it would take an exceedingly gullible person to believe that Mr. Gibson was not being intentionally deceitful in his reporting of this story (par for the course for Charlie).  It would seem that those people still under the spell of the Obama personality cult think that defending him serves some higher purpose.

In Gibson’s defense, he may just be a talking head who reads from the teleprompter (sound familiar?) and may not be responsible for the content that he repeats.  It seems apparent that Jake Tapper and Nick Schifrin do all the real journalism on that network, freeing up people like Charlie Gibson to be advocates for the Left.

This reminded me of a good report at Newsbusters a couple of weeks ago.  In case you are under the impression that this is an isolated incident of Gibson’s advocacy journalism, take a look at the following video which compares the reporting of a 9.4 percent unemployment rate under Obama to that same number under President Reagan in 1983.  Conveniently enough, it is the same so-called journalist (Charlie Gibson) doing both stories!

1982 – President Reagan (R) – 9.4% unemployment

” There really isn’t any good news in the statistics, all of the numbers are bad” … “450,000 more people are unemployed than were a month ago.  For Democrats it’s an issue ready-made.” — Charles Gibson

2009 – President Obama (D)- 9.4% unemployment

“In the current economic environment, sometimes the bad jobs report can look good.  345,000 American workers lost their jobs in May.  A big number to be sure, traumatic if you are one of the 345,000, but the number was smaller than economists had predicted, and that’s good news.” — Charles Gibson

Newsbusters published a report on this oddly different reporting of the same jobs numbers, relying on a report from the Business and Media Institute.  Some of their conclusions:

Network Reports 13 Times More Negative Under Reagan than Under Obama: An overwhelming majority of stories mentioning the Reagan administration were negative 91 percent (20 out of 22) while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Additionally, Obama mentions were favorable 87 percent of the time, but there were zero positive mentions of Reagan.

 Networks Connect Reagan White House to Negative Jobs Numbers Almost Twice as Often as Obama: Unemployment stories in 1982 mentioned the Reagan administration 71 percent of the time (22 out of 31), but 2009 stories mentioned the Obama administration only 40 percent of the time (14 out of 35).

Charles Gibson: 9.4% Unemployment ‘Good News’ (Obama) and also ‘All’ Bad (Reagan): The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under Reagan and Obama. But ABC’s Charles Gibson covered the identical rate very differently in 1982 than in 2009. Gibson told viewers May 7, 1982, “[T]here really isn’t any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad.” But by 2009, Gibson had turned into an optimist citing “good news” June 5 and “hope the economy may be finally turning the corner” Aug. 7.

I think that Charlie Gibson gets that same thrill running up his leg that Chris Matthews has so embarrassingly described.  Both men are nothing more than partisan hacks, but at least Matthews is not taken seriously as a journalist.

Hey Democrats: You DO Lie!

Joe-Wilson-You-Lie-photoIn my decades of political observation I have observed one absolute fact: you can never trust a statist to tell the truth, because the truth that they are hiding always involves their plans to make you more and more of a slave to the government.

As we all now know, even though Rep. Joe Wilson’s choice of time and place for his outburst was unwise, Joe Wilson was telling the truth and Barack Obama was lying and obfuscating.  As anyone who is not drinking his personality cult Kool Aid knows, Barack Obama consistently plays word games and obfuscates in order to hide his real statist, anti-freedom agenda.  Simply put, Barack Obama is a lying piece of [expletive deleted].

Writing at the Macon County Conservative Examiner, Robert Moon spills the beans on the Democrats’ lies about their deceitfully-named health care “reform”:

Every single Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee has voted down an amendment to ensure that this government takeover will not involuntarily force people out of the coverage they want.

This has been an central talking point of Obama’s from the beginning: “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”

We’ve seen this time and time again. As I previously noted, Democrats also indignantly rejected any notion that ObamaCare would end up covering illegal immigrants…but then turned around and voted down every single attempt to add any kind of verification measures to the legislation.
 
And then I also pointed out how Obama-apologists insisted that HR 3200 wouldn’t be used to fund abortions…only to turn around and reject any and all amendments to actually ban such funding…and now this.

Actions speak louder.
 
This is why Democrats keep losing ground with the American people.
 
This is reminiscent of Obama’s campaign pledge made repeatedly in 2008 against imposing any tax increases “of any kind” on people making less than $250,000/year…which he already violated when he passed a national tax hike on cigarettes.

When politicians tell you that you will not have to change to their plan, but then refuse to put that into the bill, they are showing themselves to be lying sacks of excrement.  Period.

When the Democrats and their water carriers in the mainstream media vehemently deny that their socialist health care plan will cover illegal aliens while they vote down any attempt to put that into the bill, they are not only lying to you, they are insulting your intelligence.

Then when they scoff at the notion that their Soviet-style health care takeover will cover abortions but then refuse to put that restriction into the bill it simply defies all believability.

The only conclusion that I can draw from all of this is that the Democrat Party geniunely believe that we are morons and that with the aid of their accomplices in the mainstream media, like the perennial advocate for the Left Charles Gibson, they can say whatever they want secure in the knowledge that they can get away with their lies.

Calling out Gibson and Tapper

Say it ain’t so, Jake!

abc_jake_tapper_090127_blog

ABC News White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

Jake Tapper, ABC News White House Correspondent,  has consistently posed harder questions to President Obama than virtually anyone else in the largely fawning gaggle of groupies also known as the White House Press Corps and because of that higher level of intellectual honesty many of us follow Jake on Facebook or on Twitter.  When he noted yesterday that ABC’s World News Tonight was [finally] going to report on the recent ACORN sting and their on-tape support of numerous illegalities I made sure that I did not miss it.  I like Jake Tapper.  I was more than a little disappointed by the story, and frankly he and Gibson need to be called out on it.

Please go watch the short segment, which can be viewed here, to decide for yourself.

The segment seemed slanted from the very beginning and I had a flashback to the late 90s when Dan Rather was reporting on the Lewinsky scandal during President Clinton’s second term.  Like Charlie Gibson’s graphic, which read “ACORN Under Fire,” Rather was doing his best to run interference for Mr. Clinton and similarly the graphic over his shoulder sympathetically read “White House Under Fire”.  Many more properly descriptive alternatives come to mind, such as “ACORN Accused of Criminality” or even “Big Media Scooped by Amateurs”, but would clearly fail to portray the group sympathetically enough.

UPDATE 9/18: To be completely honest, O’Reilly’s graphic last night said “ACORN Under Fire” as well!  But I do think that the points that I make in the rest of this post stand alone.

Gibson’s lead-in statements before handing the story off to Tapper attempted to frame the story immediately as some sort of GOP grudge match.

“For years, republicans in that city have been taking aim at an umbrella group of community organizers called ACORN.  Opposition to the group intensified when ACORN helped President Obama in his election campaign. And now a video tape has surfaced which has prompted calls for investigations of ACORN’s activities.”

ABC News Anchor Charles Gibson

ABC News Anchor Charles Gibson

Gibson immediately struck a sympathetic tone with ACORN, once again painting a picture of a group in the crosshairs of the “republicans” who are “taking aim” at ACORN and he tried to present it as a simple partisan grudge against a group who supported their opponent.  Furthermore, while being interviewed on a Chicago radio show on Tuesday (Sept. 15th), Gibson actually claimed that he was unfamiliar with the story!  Given that the story, complete with video from ACORN offices of their people happily assisting in plans for illegal activities, had broken five days earlier one would expect Mr. Gibson to be familiar with it.  The Senate had voted the night before to cut ties to ACORN and the Census Bureau had terminated their association with the radical group four days earlier on Friday, September 11th.  Mr. Gibson’s claim of ignorance truly requires an unacceptable level of credulity.

Continue reading