Posts Tagged ‘CNN’
It’s all in the family.
1973: reporters investigate All the President’s Men. 2013: reporters are All the President’s Men.
You knew the mainstream media was biased, but this is incredible. It was revealed todaythat CBS News President David Rhodes’ brother is Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who was instrumental in rewriting the Benghazi talking points. But it gets worse. It is now learned that ABC President Ben Sherwood’s sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is a Special Assistant to Barack Obama on national security affairs. But even this isn’t it! CNN’s deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is the wife of Tom Nides, who until February was Hillary Clinton’s deputy.
It doesn’t stop there, either. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is married to Claire Shipman, who works for ABC News.
Could it be that Obama appointed relatives of the press to his administration in order to make the media more reluctant to damage it with accurate reporting?
Could it be that the lack of reporting on Benghazi and other scandals – especially prior to the election – had something to do with this?
Thanks to one of the bombing victims, the suspects were quickly identified, and their photos posted for a state-wide manhunt:
Minutes before the bombs blew up in Boston, Jeff Bauman looked into the eyes of the man who tried to kill him.
Just before 3 p.m. on April 15, Bauman was waiting among the crowd for his girlfriend to cross the finish line at the Boston Marathon. A man wearing a cap, sunglasses and a black jacket over a hooded sweatshirt looked at Jeff, 27, and dropped a bag at his feet, his brother, Chris Bauman, said in an interview.
Two and a half minutes later, the bag exploded, tearing Jeff’s legs apart. A picture of him in a wheelchair, bloodied and ashen, was broadcast around the world as he was rushed to Boston Medical Center. He lost both legs below the knee.
“He woke up under so much drugs, asked for a paper and pen and wrote, ‘bag, saw the guy, looked right at me,’” Chris Bauman said yesterday in an interview.
Those words may have helped crack the mystery of who perpetrated one of the highest-profile acts of terror in the U.S. since the 2001 assault on New York City and the Washington area, one that killed three people and wounded scores.
They were identified as two Muslim brothers of Chechnyan origin. Chechnya is known as a hotbed of Islamic terrorism:
[C]ongressional researchers and foreign policy analysts have long tracked a connection between the Chechnya region and Islamic extremists sympathizing with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. If the suspects are indeed Chechen, analysts told Fox News they may represent part of a jihadi network which has made its way to American soil.
“The Chechen jihadi network is very extensive,” Middle East analyst Walid Phares said Friday. “They have a huge network inside Russia and Chechnya.”
The older brother, 26, was killed in a shoot-out with police on Thursday night, after killing a police officer. The younger brother was finally taken into custody on Friday night, after the entire city of Boston and outlying areas had been on lock-down for most of the day in search of him.
She wasn’t the only media back who was openly hoping it was a white “right winger,” because that would fit the narrative they’re trying to use to smear good, decent American citizens who happen to disagree with them politically. For them, it’s not about the truth, the victims or justice. It’s all about politics, and how they can exploit any tragedy to advance their agenda and smear their opponents.
After the Chechnyan revelation, the Left finally stopped blaming right-wingers. How big of them, after baselessly smearing their fellow Americans for a week.
THIS is how it’s done, ladies and gentlemen: stand your ground, make the argument, force the Left to defend their nonsense, and NEVER APOLOGIZE for our principles. Watch and learn:
What I find especially ironic about this exchange is how Piers, the snobby British transplant, incredulously dismisses the possibility of citizens needing guns to protect themselves from government tyranny. Apparently he forgets that it the entire reason the 2nd Amendment was written was because Americans had just got done freeing ourselves from HIS COUNTRY’s tyrannical oppression.
The 237 years since then have seen more than their share of tyrants and dictators attacking unarmed populations, which just goes to show that human nature hasn’t changed one iota.
Piers also dismissed the pocket constitution Ben gave him as just a “little book.” That “little book” is the law of the land that preserved our unalienable rights after we ran your tyrannical countrymen out on a rail, Piers.
The night before his debate with Ben Shapiro, Piers had an on-air exchange with conspiracy nut Alex Jones.
A local news anchor decided to double check Piers’ facts, and (shocker!) found some discrepancies:
View on YouTube
Why on earth do Republicans keep willingly walking into these traps? Would it kill them to demand at least ONE debate hosted by a conservative?
Conservative media watchdog Brent Bozell slammed the choice of only mainstream-media correspondents to moderate this year’s presidential debates, which could determine the outcome of the election. And he blames the Republican establishment for letting it happen.
“I scratch my head and ask myself the same question: How are they so dense?” Bozell says. “Here you’ve got Bob Schieffer, who’s been just slamming Paul Ryan all weekend long, and he’s going to moderate a debate.
“And all you’ve got to is look at the footage of his past debates,” said Bozell. “He’s terrible.”
The Commission on Presidential Debates announced the schedule for this year’s all-important presidential debates on Monday. No conservative journalists were named.
The first debate will be held in Denver on Oct. 3. It will be moderated by longtime newsman Jim Lehrer of PBS.
“He’s pretty middle-of-the-road as a newsman,” says Bozell. “But watch him on the debates, he tilts strongly to the left.”
The second debate with be moderated by Martha Raddatz, senior foreign affairs correspondent of ABC News. To be held Oct. 11 in Danville, Ky., it will feature the vice presidential candidates: Incumbent Joe Biden of Delaware against GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
Because Biden’s strength is foreign affairs, having Raddatz as moderator could work to his advantage. That debate will cover both domestic and international topics, however.
The third debate will be held Oct. 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and will feature Candy Crowley, anchor of CNN’s State of the Union program.
“Candy Crowley isn’t that bad, in fact she’s had some positive moments,” Bozell tells Newsmax. “But she’s going to be drinking from the CNN Kool-Aid, and they’re the ones who are going to prepare the questions for her. So it’s going to be predictable.”
The final debate will feature Schieffer, the longtime CBS correspondent and moderator of Face the Nation, on Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla. Schieffer is well respected in mainstream-media circles, but has a habit of asking questions on Face the Nation that suggest a point of view.
“Has the tea party made compromise a dirty word, and is that why Congress can’t seem to get anything done?” he asked Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., earlier this year, for example.
Bozell says he is “rather surprised” that no one from Fox News will moderate a debate. In November 2010, Fox’s election night coverage drew more viewers in the 10 p.m. slot than any broadcast network.
“They’re no longer step-children,” Bozell said of Fox. “They’re major players in this. Why don’t I see Bret Baier, why don’t I see Shephard Smith, and a number of people who are not doctrinaire conservatives by any step of the imagination — why don’t we see them?
“What about Britt Hume?” he added. “…Where’s somebody from the Washington Examiner, the Washington Times, or Newsmax? It’s not like the left has a monopoly of talent.”
Exposed: Media Matters Collaborated With Obama White House and News Organizations, Made Enemies List Of ‘Preliminary Targets’
Conservatives have known this for years, but Media Matters is NOT a non-partisan “fact checker.” It is a Soros-funded attack dog dedicated to discrediting conservative individuals, groups and media outlets that dare to speak out against the Left’s agenda.
An internal Media Matters For America memo obtained by The Daily Caller reveals that the left-wing media watchdog group employs an “opposition research team” to target its political enemies. Included in the list of targets are right-leaning websites, conservative think tanks, prominent financiers and donors, and more than a dozen specific Fox News Channel and News Corporation employees.
“We will conduct extensive public records searches and compile opposition books on individuals,” declares the memo, likely written in late 2009. Investigations, it says, “will focus on the backgrounds, connections, operations and political and financial activities of the individuals.”
Fox News reports that its employees were being specifically targeted by Media Matters:
Liberal media watchdog group Media Matters once contemplated harassing Fox News employees with yard signs in their neighborhoods, hiring private investigators to dig into their personal lives and retaining a “major law firm” to study legal action against the network, according to a report Tuesday in the Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller’s damning investigation reveals “erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations“:
…Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.
Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.
Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”
Media Matters has perhaps achieved more influence simply by putting its talking points into the willing hands of liberal journalists. “In ‘08 it became pretty apparent MSNBC was going left,” says one source. “They were using our research to write their stories. They were eager to use our stuff.” Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls.
Stories about Fox News were especially well received by MSNBC anchors and executives: “If we published something about Fox in the morning, they’d have it on the air that night verbatim.” [...]
“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.” [...]
“The HuffPo guys were good, Sam Stein and Nico [Pitney],” remembered one former staffer. “The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington].”
“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” the staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”
“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources. Staffers at Media Matters “knew they could dump stuff to Ben Smith, they knew they could dump it at Plum Line [Greg Sargent’s Washington Post blog], so that’s where they sent it.”
Reporters who weren’t cooperative might feel the sting of a Media Matters campaign against them. “If you hit a reporter, say a beat reporter at a regional newspaper,” a Media Matters source said, “all of a sudden they’d get a thousand hostile emails. Sometimes they’d melt down. It had a real effect on reporters who weren’t used to that kind of scrutiny.”
Most damning are the revelations about Obama’s partnership with Media Matters, which gave him unprecedented influence over the content of news reports regarding his administration, the Democrat party and the “progressive” agenda:
Media Matters also began a weekly strategy call with the White House, which continues, joined by the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. Jen Psaki, Obama’s deputy communications director, was a frequent participant before she left for the private sector in October 2011.
Every Tuesday evening, meanwhile, a representative from Media Matters attends the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington, where dozens of progressive organizations formulate strategy, often with a representative from the Obama White House.
Still, this dangerous level of controlled media messaging wasn’t enough for Obama. In 2009 he attempted to block Fox News from the press pool because of their unfavorable reporting. He has routinely intimidated and bullied reporters, often restricting their access to the White House if they dared to step out of line. He had the Department of Homeland Security monitor journalists online. He’s collaborated directly with journalists, hosting them at White House gatherings where they were given talking points to coordinate the message for the 2012 election. Even veteran liberal reporter Helen Thomas complained that ‘not even Nixon’ tried to control the media like Obama does.
This latest exposé of Obama’s collaboration with the Lefitst propaganda machine is sure to bring up plenty of questions about how little he was vetted prior to 2008, and how much he is still hiding now.
If you’re looking for an alternative media watchdog, TruthOrFiction.com is a TRUE non-partisan urban legend fact checker. Newsbusters is also a great independent media watchdog resource which is unapologetically conservative and honest, and doesn’t collaborate with any political party.
Obama’s Homeland Security is already using fake Twitter profiles to follow Americans who “tweet” key words like “drill” or “illegal immigrant” (I must be keeping them busy).
This is especially concerning, considering that the White House already has a reputation for intimidating reporters who dare to report stories they don’t like. Perhaps he considers journalists who stray from the party line to be potential “extremists.”
Just sit back for a minute and imagine the howls from the media if it was disclosed that George W. Bush’s Department of Homeland Security was monitoring the social media activity of journalists. The word Nixonian would be trending on Twitter and you could be assured the daily White House press briefing would turn into a free-for-all.
Well, it’ll be interesting to see the reaction of Obama’s adoring White House press corps when they discover their activities are being tracked by the Department of Homeland Security.
Freedom of speech might allow journalists to get away with a lot in America, but the Department of Homeland Security is on the ready to make sure that the government is keeping dibs on who is saying what.
Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.
Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”
Now granted what reporters and anchors tweet is available publicly, but one can only imagine the chilling effect this could have. It stands to reason if these reporters and news anchors believe what they’re saying is being compiled into a database then they’ll pretty much clam up and stay silent.
All of a sudden “dissent is patriotic” again.
Apparently the hypocrisy of media commentators knows no bounds.
It’s downright disgusting to listen to conservative and Republican lawmakers, presidential candidates, business owners and media commentators use such vitriol to describe the Occupy Wall Street protesters as hell-bent on destroying America.
How in the world can anyone even form their lips to say such a thing when this very country was founded on the basis of dissent?
CNN wants to complain about “vitriol” against dissenters?
Cry me a river. They’ve called Tea Partiers “terrorists”, “suicide bombers”, “barbarians”, “S.O.B’s” who need to be “taken out”, “extremists”, “racists” who want to “lynch blacks”, “tyrants”, “political extortionists” who “held a gun to the president’s head”, “maniacal” “towel-snapping crazies”, “gargoyles”, and “adamantine nihilists”, and the “’Hezbollah Faction’ of the GOP”….and those are just the direct quotes (all while insisting on “civility” and referring to REAL terrorists in politically correct terms).
When the media starts calling the lawbreaking “Occupiers” ANY of these things (which they never will), maybe THEN they’ll have room to complain.
CBS and NBC led Wednesday night with glowing stories about the growth and diversity of the far-left “Occupy Wall Street” protests, though without any ideological label applied nor any critics allowed, a promotional approach the networks never provided in Tea Party coverage.
“We begin tonight with what has become by any measure a pretty massive protest movement,” NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams announced. “While it goes by the official name ‘Occupy Wall Street,’ it has spread steadily and far beyond Wall Street, and it could well turn out to be the protest of this current era.”
ABC’s Cecilia Vega touted how “it is a crowd that grows daily in size and diversity,” CBS’s Michelle Miller heralded “they’re gaining momentum and new recruits” and NBC’s Mara Schiavocampo trumpeted “the largest crowd yet, and more varied in age and background.”
She assured viewers that “experts say though still largely undefined, the movement has a lot of potential.”
Over a montage of pictures, Williams opened his newscast by applying rock lyrics from the 1960s to the events:
Good evening. We begin tonight with what has become by any measure a pretty massive protest movement. While it goes by the official name “Occupy Wall Street,” it has spread steadily and far beyond Wall Street, and it could well turn out to be the protest of this current era. The lyric from 45 years ago in the Buffalo Springfield song For What It’s Worthcould also describe this current movement right now. Once again, “there is something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear,” but it encompasses a lot of things: anger, frustration, disenfranchisement, income disparity, unaccountability and general upheaval and dissatisfaction. Again today, thousands took to the streets of this city. They’re in the streets of other cities as well.
ABC’s Vega highlighted how “thousands of union workers marched in solidarity in joining a common cause, blaming bank greed for the country’s economic woes.” She then ran a clip of an iron union worker – the very same white man who also got a soundbite in NBC’s story.
And NBC’s Schiavocampo on Wednesday night showcased the very same professor from Columbia University, Dorian Warren, as ABC featured in a report aired on Monday’s World News.
After highlighting, without regard to their size, how “the protests are spreading from cyberspace to streets all around the country — 50 cities now — from Salt Lake City to Topeka to Knoxville,” Vega considered it newsworthy that a left-wing Democrat is in favor of the left-wing protests: “The movement now garnering attention from politicians running for office, like Elizabeth Warren, who’s vying for a Democratic Senate nomination in Massachusetts.”
Vega proceeded to hail how “observers of social history say the protesters’ growing presence could be a major issue in the coming presidential election year.” A white female professor celebrated: “If you can influence the conversation in the 2012 election, then you’ve done something pretty amazing.”
Over on CBS, Michelle Miller marveled at how “they have a food court, medical unit, and publish a daily newspaper called the Occupied Wall Street Journal.” She also showed how protesters are to the left of the Democratic Party: “Sixty-nine-year-old Patricia Walsh came from Denver. She protested the Democratic convention back in 1968.”
A food court, a medical unit and a daily newspaper? Yeah, that sounds totally “unorganized” to me.
Where exactly does the money for these “grassroots” amenities come from? Are these reporters not the least bit curious? Especially after irresponsibly reporting Obama’s baseless rumors that the Tea Party was being bankrolled by “foreign corporations” and the RNC?
At the Weekly Standard, Mark Hemingway does a fantastic analysis of the insane ideologies of so-called “Christian” terrorists:
Peter Beinart has a doozy of a column up over at the Daily Beast, rather breathlessly titled, “Why Norway Could Happen Here.” Since I suspect that Beinart managed to repeat every left-wing myth about the violent tendencies of Christians and conservatives, let’s take a look at the key paragraph:
There’s actually been a lot of right-wing, extremist Christian terrorism in the U.S. in recent years. The biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history prior to 9/11—the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing—was carried out by Timothy McVeigh, a white ex-Army officer with ties to the militia movement. That same year, Eric Rudolph bombed the Atlanta Olympics to protest abortion and international socialism. The only major WMD attack of the “war on terror” era—the 2001 anthrax mailings—apparently was the handiwork of a microbiologist angry that prominent Catholic politicians were pro-choice. In 2009, anti-abortion militants murdered Wichita doctor George Tiller. (He already had been shot once, and his clinic had been bombed). That same year octogenarian neo-Nazi, James Wenneker von Brunn, shot a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Last February, Andrew Joseph Stack, angry at the federal government, flew a small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas.
Beinart is either largely ignorant, or has a pretty curious definition of “right-wing, extremist Christian.” For one thing, I’m not sure that label applies in its entirety to Anders Breivik. As for his other examples, well, McVeigh was no Christian. He famously declared that “Science is my religion,” and his final words were quoting from Invictus: “I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul … I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”
Here’s abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph in an interview with USA Today:
“Many good people continue to send me money and books,” Rudolph writes in an undated letter. “Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I’m in here I must be a ‘sinner’ in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible.”
As for alleged Anthrax mailer Bruce Ivins being supposedly motivated by his pro-life, Catholic views — well, that’s a pretty unfounded assertion based on a lot of tenuous and anonymous sources. Further, from what we know about his religious views — to say nothing of considerable evidence that he was mentally ill – he wanted the Catholic church to liberalize on the issue of female and married clergy. Not exactly what one thinks of when we discuss extremist religious views.
Then there’s holocaust museum shooter James von Brunn. Who in his own words, was emphatically not a Christian: “The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION … CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES.” As for Brunn’s politics, this is a little close to home, but Ben Smith handled it nicely:
The [WEEKLY STANDARD] is about a mile north of the Holocaust Museum, and there’s no other indication that von Brunn had targeted it. Von Brunn’s published rants included attacks on “neocons,” and the Standard has been at the heart of the neoconservative movement.
The suggestion that the Standard may have been a target complicates any view of the racist shooter in contemporary left-right terms. Von Brunn’s white supremacist roots put him under the rubric of a “right-wing extremist,” but the substance of his views — which included everything from believing that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks to denying that President Obama is an American citizen — are too far on the fringe to fit into conventional political classification.
And then there’s Andrew Joseph Stack who flew his plane into an IRS building in Texas. Allow me to pull out some quotes from the manifesto he left-behind:
“…institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church…”
“The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living.”
“The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government.”
“The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”
Yup. Sounds like a Stack was a “right-wing, extremist Christian.”
Media Blames Christians, Conservatives for Oslo Massacre, Warn of Growing ‘Right Wing Extremist’ Threat
Wow, I must be moving up in the world. You know you’re making a difference when the right (or Left) people launch their Alinksyite smear tactics on you.
I and my fellow bloggers are now to blame for the Norway massacre. Or so my hate mail assures me.
From the twitter account of Carla Axtman, top columnist at Blue Oregon:
I dare anyone to find a blog post of mine that condones violence.
And I find it hilarious that she picks out my article on feminism as an example of “Christo-facism”.
Does she even KNOW what the word “fascism” means??
I get a kick out of exposing this kind of cowardly bullying. These people like to lurk in the dark and strike their targets when they think nobody’s watching, then slither back to the shadows and pat each another on the back for their “tolerance”. It really is funny, if it weren’t so pathetic.
Then again, I’m in good company. The New York Times recently fashioned a ridiculous hit piece on Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, Pam Gellar, and other conservative bloggers on the front lines of the intellectual fight against Islamic extremism in the West. In politics, one is marked just as much by the enemies they make as their friends. To be named and attacked by these thugs is a badge of honor.
Blue Oregon doesn’t have anywhere near the clout of the NYT, but it’s a compliment of sorts when you’re making enough of an impact for them to sick their character assassins after you.
It didn’t take long for American media to blame this weekend’s tragic shootings in Oslo, Norway, on our nation’s conservatives.
The New York Times splashed it across its front page Monday with the headline “Killings Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.“:
The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam, lacing his 1,500-page manifesto with quotations from them, as well as copying multiple passages from the tract of the Unabomber.
In the document he posted online, Anders Behring Breivik, who is accused of bombing government buildings and killing scores of young people at a Labor Party camp, showed that he had closely followed the acrimonious American debate over Islam.
His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture.
Yet when a pair of homegrown terrorists were arrested in Seattle last month before a planned attack on a military facility, the Times chose not to inform readers that the duo were Muslim-converts and the ringleader idolized Osama bin Laden.
Now, roughly four weeks later, a sadly successful attack happened thousands of miles away, and the Times was more than happy to point fingers – prominently on its front page! – at American conservatives.
Then there’s this hit piece by CNN, which claims that “far right domestic terrorism” is just as much a threat, if not more so, than Radical Islam. Many of their sources are Left-wing activists groups or come from within Janet Napolitano’s Homeland Security Department:
The threat of domestic terrorist attacks in the United States similar to last week’s fatal bombing and assault in Norway is significant and growing, analysts said Monday.
The greatest threat of large-scale attacks come from individuals and small groups of extremists who subscribe to radical Islamic or far right-wing ideologies, said Gary LaFree, director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START.
While extremist animal rights and environmental groups also pose threats, those groups either have not tended to seek to kill or have only targeted individuals, according to researchers.
But extremist right-wingers — from Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh to a neo-Nazi accused of trying to bomb a Martin Luther King Day parade this year — have shown a willingness to target the public, LaFree said.
Such groups are among the fastest-growing extremist organizations in the country, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported in February. Right wing anti-government groups grew by 60% in 2010 over the previous year, the center reported, attributing much of the growth to militia groups.
The group also reported a smaller increase in the number of anti-immigrant vigilante groups, SPLC reported.
The suspect in the Oslo, Norway, bombings published papers on the Internet stressing “unity over diversity” and calling for a violent response to a policy of multiculturalism that he said was destroying European society.
How much you wanna bet CNN has had this story all written and ready to go for just such an opportunity? Napolitano has already labeled pro-lifers and Tea Partiers “right wing extremists“. Should we all be expecting federal agents at our front doors, now?
Journalists from a variety of news outlets – including the New York Times and full camera crews from CNN, CBS – will be covering the anti-Israel flotilla from aboard one of the ships, according to The Nation correspondent Joseph Dana (who will also report from the flotilla).
Anybody care to mention that The Nation is a self-proclaimed communist newspaper?
While it’s hard to blame reporters for seeking out a colorful story, they should realize by joining the activists on the boat they are actually making themselves a part of the story. They will be with the flotilla when it attempts to violate international law by trying to break Israel’s legally-established naval blockade. And they could potentially interfere with the Israeli military’s ability to do its job if IDF soldiers are forced to board the ships.
The one upside of this development is at least now flotilla activists will have a more difficult time attacking IDF soldiers with knives once the network news cameras are rolling. But the unfortunate downside is these reporters are giving the flotilla activists exactly what they’re aiming for – media attention. Seeing as there’s no humanitarian reason for the flotilla (which is even more obvious now that the Egyptian border with Gaza has been opened), its only point is to generate publicity. The activists are sure to receive a lot of media coverage this time around – and they won’t even have to resort to stabbing soldiers to get it.
American Jews comprise more than 25 percent of the pro-Hamas flotilla that aims to challenge the IDF on the high seas and reach Hamas-backed Gaza, throwing cold water on the allegation of a unified pro-Israel “Jewish lobby” in the United States.
“It’s important that Jews are in this boat… The Jewish lobby in this country is so powerful,” New York Jewish labor attorney Richard Levy told media agencies.
Comments by the Jews reflect mis-information that is omnipresent in mainstream media, particularly when referring to the supposed “blockade” on Gaza in order to prevent the smuggling of advanced weapons, explosives and terrorists whose aim is to attack Israel civilians and soldiers.
Israel imposed a partial blockade after Hamas’ terrorist militia ousted the rival Fatah faction in a bloody war more than four years ago. Thousands of tons of humanitarian aid were allowed through land crossings, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last year canceled the blockade on all goods except for material that can be used for the Hamas terrorist infrastructure.
The maritime embargo remains in effect because of the ease with which Hamas can use fishing boats to bring into Gaza weapons from Iran and Syria.
The American Jews on the flotilla, like millions of other people, still refer to the “Israel blockade,” which Levy said is “morally and juridically unsupportable.” He then made an inexplicable connection to “slaughter,” stating that “no more people should be slaughtered in the name of the Jews.”
The Americans hope to sail from Greece on “The Audacity of Hope” this week with the announced intention of breaking the maritime embargo, but Israeli military commanders have said that the goal of the pro-Hamas organizers behind the flotilla is to try to force the IDF into a clash, similar to last year’s confrontation with Turkish-based IHH terror activists.
From her Christian faith to her sweet “Letter from God” about her son Trig, the media has been using anything it can twist and distort to destroy her. But for the average American voter, it is painfully obvious these attacks say far more about an agenda-driven Leftist media machine than they do about Sarah Palin.
In this CNN video, anchor T.J. Holmes is clearly digging for something scandalous to justify previous media smears, from “Troopergate” to bogus ethic violation accusations. Reporter Drew Griffin obviously isn’t giving Holmes the answers he’s looking for. In fact, Griffin appears to be gaining admiration for Governor Palin as he reads excerpts of her e-mails:
Looks like the MSM’s lengthy search-and-destroy mission against Palin is coming back to bite them and destroy what little credibility they had left.
Every once in awhile, even a liberal can get it right!
Democratic state legislators have begun fleeing their respective capitals as if the plague has broken out. Perhaps they see it that way. Republicanism has gone viral, and it seems that no state is safe, no matter how unionized.
But this plague is called democracy, and the cure is worse than the disease.
In Wisconsin and now Indiana, Republican-dominated legislatures have proposed laws to reduce the power of the unions. Unable to block the bills, Democratic legislators have skedaddled in a desperate gambit to deny Republicans the minimum quorums required to vote.
The catch-me-if-you-can tactic was pioneered by Texas Democrats in 2003; they fled to Oklahoma and New Mexico in a vain attempt to block Republican efforts to redistrict the state. Republicans asked the FBI to arrest the fugitive Democrats. Hilarity ensued. Eventually, the wayward Democrats returned, and the Republicans concluded their redistricting.
The recent vanishing acts in Wisconsin and Indiana will probably be no more successful. Voters may or may not approve of the anti-union bills, but they elected their legislators to govern, and their anger will grow as the stalemate persists. Realizing this, some of the holdouts will inevitably crack, and so the bills will eventually pass anyway.
But political self-interest is not the only reason to quit the obstructionist parliamentary games. Let’s suppose that the Democrats are successful in blocking the bills. After weeks or months of glorious deadlock, the Republicans finally blink. The courageous Democrats ride home to ticker tape parades, and they parlay their victory into recapturing their respective legislatures in 2012.
What then is to stop Republicans from running away to block Democratic bills? After all, how could Democrats complain when they employed the same tactic themselves? How well will our state governments function when breaking quorum becomes a common parliamentary strategy?
Sound farfetched? Just look to the proliferation of obstructionist tactics in the U.S. Senate. In the 19th century, there were only 23 Senate filibusters. During President Obama’s first two years in office, there were over a hundred.
Although Republicans hold the record, Democrats were hardly shy about filibustering when they were in the minority under President Bush. Each successive Congress has used the behavior of opponents in previous Congresses to justify its tactics.
In short, obstructionism may provide short-term gains to one party or another, but it tends to breed even more obstructionism. Then we all lose.
Personally, I oppose the anti-union bills. I urge every legislator in Wisconsin and Indiana to vote against them, and I support the many protestors and union members who have organized to fight them.
But the Republicans won the elections in Wisconsin and Indiana. If they have the votes to pass the bills, that is their prerogative.
If the Democrats hope to defeat these bills or repeal them in the future, they need to take their case to the voters and win elections in 2012. That’s how democracy works.
CNN host gets schooled by Russell Pearce on 14th amendment:
View at The Right Scoop
Here come the language police:
The Diversity Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is undertaking an educational campaign against the term “illegal immigrant,” seeking to inform reporters that the term “illegal immigrant” is “offensive” to Latinos.
In the latest issue of SPJ’s magazine ‘Quill’, SPJ’s Diversity Committee member Leo Laurence writes about the campaign, referencing the National Association of Hispanic Journalists’ recommendation to use “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented worker” and to “[a]void using ‘illegal(s)’ as a noun.”
“SPJ’s Diversity Committee met during the 2010 convention in Las Vegas and decided to engage in a yearlong educational campaign designed to inform and sensitize journalists as to the best language to use when writing and reporting on undocumented immigrants,” wrote Laurence.
Terrorists are covertly using Islamic Shariah law as a non-violent way to destroy the United States while the government ignores the threat, according to a bipartisan group of highly accomplished military, terrorism and national security experts.
The veteran officials from the CIA, FBI, U.S. military as well as a former Justice Department prosecutor assert that Shariah law—the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists and their jihadism—has created a threat similar to the Soviet communist ideology that aimed to defeat the west and tyrannize the world. They refer to Shariah as the “preeminent totalitarian threat of our time,” in a report (Shariah, The Threat to America) published this week by a nonpartisan group that studies national security.
A lengthy investigation determined that the violent threat created by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations is outmatched by the hazards from jihadists looking to change American society from within. “This form of warfare includes multi-layered cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations and propaganda and other means of insinuating Shariah into Western societies,” the report says.
As an example of a powerful organization trying to achieve that goal it cites the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that advocates terrorism against Israel and the west and is known as the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda. Just last month, in its fervent crusade to befriend Muslims, the White House hosted special workshops to provide radical Islamic groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood direct access to U.S. government funding, assistance and resources.
Earlier in the year Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano covertly met with a group of extremist Arab, Muslim and Sikh organizations to discuss national security matters. Before that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have for years banned them from the U.S.
The government should cease these sorts of outreach efforts to groups and individuals that want to destroy America from within, the security experts warn in their report. They also ask the Obama Administration to reconsider its stance that Islam is not linked to terrorism.