The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for the ‘Journalism Is Dead’ Category

Media Research Center: How the Elite Media Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy Reagan’s Legacy

Posted by iusbvision on February 1, 2011

 

Via the Media Research Center:

Special Report. “Rewriting Ronald Reagan: How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy”

Below is the Executive Summary for a special report posted today on the MRC’s Web site, “Rewriting Ronald Reagan: How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy,” posted with 103 quotes enhanced by 22 videos clips with accompanying audio.

This week the celebrations begin for the “Reagan Centennial.” This report, compiled by Rich Noyes with video rendering help from Kyle Drennen and fresh quotes text and quotes added by Tim Graham, is a reminder about the disdain, disgust and disrespect the news media displayed toward Ronald Reagan in office and in the years since.

For the Executive Summary online: http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/ExecSumm.aspx

The text below includes links to the seven specific sections:
“Reagan the Man,” “The Reaganomics Recovery,” “Reagan and National Defense,” “Reagan and Race,” “The Reagan Legacy” and “Reagan, Slammed by Celebrities.”

For the PDF sans video clips, but in a great format for printing and with a colorful cover created by the MRC’s Melanie Selmer:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/uploads/Reagan2011.pdf

Now the Executive Summary for the January 31 report:

Rewriting Ronald Reagan
How the Media Have Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy His Legacy

As the nation prepares to pay tribute to former President Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth, it is amazing to consider that his success at turning the U.S. away from 1960s-style liberalism was accomplished in the face of a daily wave of news media hostility. The media’s first draft of history was more myth than reality: that Reagan only brought the nation poverty, ignorance, bankruptcy, and a dangerously imbalanced foreign and defense policy.

The Media Research Center has assembled a report documenting the “objective” national media’s most biased takes on President Reagan, his record and his times, including 22 video clips and matching MP3 audio:

I. Reagan the Man: Reporters often agonized over why the American public liked Reagan, that they couldn’t see through the White House spell and see Reagan in the contemptuous light that the media did. Go to: http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Man.aspx

II. The Reaganomics Recovery: Reagan’s policies caused a dramatic economic turn-around from high inflation and unemployment to steady growth, but the good news was obscured by bad news of trade deficits, greedy excesses of the rich, and supposedly booming homelessness. See:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Reaganomics.aspx

III. Reagan and National Defense: Ronald Reagan may have won the Cold War, but to the media, the Reagan defense buildup seemed like a plot designed to deny government aid to the poor and hungry, and was somehow the only spending responsible for “bankrupting” the country. Check:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Defense.aspx

IV. Reagan and Race: Using their definition of “civil rights” — anything which adds government-mandated advantages for racial minorities is “civil rights” progress — liberal journalists suggested that somehow Ronald Reagan was against liberty for minorities. Go to:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Race.aspx

V. The Reagan Legacy: The media painted the Reagan era as a horrific time of low ethics, class warfare on the poor, and crushing government debt. Examples:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/ReaganLegacy.aspx

EXTRA: Reagan, Slammed by Celebrities. Ronald Reagan’s long Hollywood career earned him no credit among celebrities, who ridiculed him and even inserted anti-Reagan jokes into everyday entertainment programming. Check:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/RewritingReagan/Celebrities.aspx

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Reagan vs. Obama

Posted by iusbvision on January 31, 2011

Related:  Media Research Center: How the Elite Media Worked to Distort, Dismantle and Destroy Reagan’s Legacy

 

http://www.reagandocumentary.com/

For those of you who are too young to know. The media glowingly comparing Obama to Reagan is revisionist history. The media loves Obama, hates the Tea Party and while they laud Reagan now, it just goes to show that success has many fathers. The truth is that the elite media hated Reagan. They slandered him and Nancy regularly. For several years after Reagan gave his farewell address the elite media and the left blatantly tried to rewrite history of the greatest presidency of the 20th century. The same can be said of the first Gulf war to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. The left, along with their lackey’s in the elite media, insisted that it was a war designed to steal Iraq and Kuwait’s oil. Of course none of that happened and now the left claims credit for it.

American Thinker gets the story correct:

As we approach the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, the former president has been in the news once again. One way he has been used is to boost the image of Barack Obama.

Some presidents have been used to degrade the image of others. Herbert Hoover was a convenient whipping boy to tar various Republicans through the years. Nixon was the epitome of evil in the White House. The fate of Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, has been a curious one. The punditry that savaged him before, during, and after his years in office are now trying to burnish Barack Obama’s image by comparing the two presidents.

This is just the latest gambit to try to boost the appeal of Barack Obama. He has gone through many image makeovers over the last couple of years. He has been Lincolnesque (an image he stoked by making his presidential announcement in Springfield), and then TIME Magazine morphed his image into the image of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and now the latest incarnation in a sense compares him with Ronald Reagan. They are paired together with a friendly Ronald Reagan placing his hand on the shoulder of Barack Obama.

The comparison alone is a not-too-subtle way to enhance Obama’s appeal. The man has gone through as many shape shifts as has the man in the new Old Spice campaign.

How did the pundits treat the man they now pair with Barack Obama?

Let’s take a trip down memory lane.

Clark Clifford, advisor to a string of Democratic Presidents and a major league elite, called Reagan “an amiable dunce.”

The Chicago Tribune called Reagan ignorant and said his “air-headed rhetoric on the issues of foreign policy and arms control have reached the limits of tolerance and have become an embarrassment to the U.S. and a danger to world peace.”

Washington Post columnist David Broder (still on the beat and front and center in the Obama cheering section) said the job of Reagan’s staff is to water “the desert between Ronald Reagan’s ears.”

Henry Kissinger said that when you meet Reagan, you wonder: how did it ever occur to anyone that he should be governor, much less president?’

Jimmy Breslin, the columnist, said Reagan was senile and then insulted his supporters by saying they were proof that senility was a communicable disease. For good measure, he called Reagan “shockingly dumb.”

Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift said that “greed in this country is associated with Ronald Reagan.” Joining in this common slur was USA Today’s White House reporter Sarah McClendon, who said that “it will take a hundred years to get the government back into place after Ronald Reagan. He hurt people: the disabled, women, nursing mothers, the homeless.”

Lesley Stahl of CBS News (and now “60 Minutes”) said, “I predict historians are going to be totally baffled by how the American people fell in love with this man.”

Hollywood director John Huston (not a pundit as such, but illustrative of a mindset in Hollywood — a major source of Democratic donors) said Reagan was a “bore,” with a “low order of intelligence,” who is “egotistical.”

Tip O’ Neill (the powerful Speaker of the House) said Reagan’s mind was “an absolute and total disgrace” and that it was “sinful that this man is President of the United States.” Steven Hayward reminds us in his recent “Reagan Reclaimed” column that O’Neill said that “the evil is on the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.”

John Osborne in the New Republic magazine wrote that “Ronald Reagan is an ignoramus.”

After his election, columnist William Greider said, “[M]y God, they’ve elected this guy who nine months ago we thought was a hopeless clown.”

The Nation warned “he is the most dangerous person ever to come this close to the presidency” and that “he is a menace to the human race.”

When, in his first term, the country faced some economic weakness and Reagan’s poll numbers turned down, pundits were celebrating as they wrote his political obituary. Kevin Phillips, political pundit, wrote that “it didn’t take a genius to predict on Inauguration Day that Reagan would unravel” and that it was foolish to think that Reagan could solve the nation’s economic problems with policies based on “maxims out of McGuffey’s Reader and Calvin Coolidge.”

The New York Times joined in: “the stench of failure hangs over Ronald Reagan’s White House.”

When Reagan delivered his famous “evil empire” speech (that, by the way, also was critical of America’s own historical failings), New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis was apoplectic, deriding it as “simplistic,” “sectarian,” “terribly dangerous,” “outrageous,” and in conclusion, “primitive…the only word for it” (then why did he use all the other words, one might ask — a little overkill goes a long way).

I could go on with more examples of the invective and personal insults hurled at Reagan by the chattering classes and opinion-makers over the years. Even when he died after a long struggle with Alzheimer’s, the derogation continued; he could not escape the obloquy even in death.

When Reagan was still alive, he brushed it all off with aplomb and good cheer. He was known as the Teflon President for the best of reasons. He did not stoop to the level of his critics, but instead stood above them.

He did not let them divert him from what he saw as his role: restore our sense of pride and spirit after Jimmy Carter had ground them down and boost the economy (despite some waves, he stayed the course and allowed “supply-side” economics to work its “magic”).

But he did more, much more.

For years, Reagan felt sorrow and anger that hundreds of millions of people suffered under Communism. While experts counseled détente and working with the Soviets, Reagan saw the immorality of accepting the “status quo” that deprived those enslaved by Communism of their freedoms and liberty. He thought it was shameful that such an abominable system persisted. Many were content with the Cold War. Reagan was not. He told Richard Allen, his National Security Advisor, “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: we win, they lose. What do you think of that?” I suppose the likes of Anthony Lewis might characterize that goal as simplistic or primitive.

But after decades of Soviet slavery and expansionism, Reagan not only contained the Soviet Union, but brought it to its knees — giving the Russian people themselves the opportunity to deliver the coup de grâce. He beseeched Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but all the walls crumbled. Those revisionists who refuse to give Reagan his due and credit Mikhail Gorbachev with the mercy-killing of Communism are wrong. They would do well — as would we all — to read about the detailed and multifaceted strategy Reagan designed and promoted to implode the Soviet Union. The story is superbly told in Paul Kengor’s The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Reagan was a hero to the people being smothered by the Iron Curtain — to Russians such as Natan Sharansky, imprisoned because he wanted freedom, and to Polish laborers who tore his black-and-white photo out of a newspaper and used it to rally protesters. He earned a Nobel Prize for Peace — and, of course, was denied one.

Despite all that he accomplished, the pundits and media mavens slandered and insulted Reagan — time and time again.

And now the pundits have the temerity to resurrect him to help Barack Obama’s political future?

Haven’t they spent the last three(-plus) years extolling Barack Obama — from the “sort of God” comment by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas to the “tingle up the leg” thrill he gave MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to the New York Times columnist David Brooks, who succumbed to the Obama cult and wrote of Obama that “I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant and I’m thinking a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president”? I could go on and on regarding how often Obama has been described as an intellectual giant with God-given talents, so brilliant that he is bored by the rest of us yahoos. Obama even joked that all of the White House correspondents voted for him. They were his cheerleaders. They had “the vapors” for Barack Obama.

The media has been biased in favor of Barack Obama for years. He got rock-star treatment as a candidate (the obsequiousness was even satirized on “Saturday Night Live”) and has had the media fawning and fainting in the newsroom for most of his term.

However, Obama has not been completely immune from some criticism. The economy is still weak, with millions unemployed. His poll numbers started falling in 2009 and took a nosedive in 2010. The Democrats took a shellacking in November that some pundits pin on Obama and his policies.

How does Obama deal with criticism? Does he have the character and strength of Ronald Reagan and let it roll off him? Need one ask? He takes it personally.

Reagan had Teflon coating; Obama has thin skin.

Reagan laughed off criticism — it came with the job. Eugene McCarthy, a liberal icon whose 1968 run for the presidency was eclipsed when Robert Kennedy jumped into the race, endorsed Ronald Reagan for the presidency. When he was asked why, he answered, “It’s because he is the only man since Harry Truman who won’t confuse the job with the man.”

Reagan was focused not on himself, but on the rest of America — and the world. That was the “rest of him,” and it mattered far more than the abuse heaped on him.

Does Obama respond with the same graceful equanimity? Or is he more focused on himself and his ego? (He is addicted to the word “I,” said he has a “gift” when it comes to oratory, said he would make a better political director than his political director, and on and on.)

Barack Obama whines about being “talked about like a dog” (whatever that means). His peevishness towards the press and the punditry has emerged as one of his least attractive qualities. He won’t listen to criticism and does not want us to hear it, either.

He has all but counseled us to ignore Fox News and the internet, he has cast unjustified and blatantly false aspersions regarding foreign money and the Chamber of Commerce political ads that took him to task for his policies and performance, and he has called for less incendiary language in political discourse (this from the guy who can’t take it but can sure dish it out — as in “get in their face,” “bring a gun to a knife fight,” “fat cats,” “sit in the back,” “punish our enemies and reward our friends” — that is some heated rhetoric for a Nobel Peace Prize winner).

The media spin job that Barack Obama is the second coming of Ronald Reagan — that Ron and Barack would be pals, that Barack Obama can hold a candle to Ronald Reagan — not only misses the mark, but willfully ignores how unfairly and disgracefully the media treated Ronald Reagan when he was alive. To use him now that he is dead compounds the insult.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Allen West to Congress: Go Bold or Go Home!

Posted by iusbvision on January 28, 2011

West also gives the elite media a needed tongue lashing.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Glenn Beck Destroys Chris “Balloon Head” Matthews

Posted by iusbvision on January 28, 2011

Chris Mathews, pushes the anti-American Marxist lie about the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution. The truth is that if not for the 3/5th compromise the progress at restricting and reducing slavery till the Civil War would not have happened. The entire purpose of the 3/5 compromise was to reduce the Southern States influence in Congress and to punish them in representation for not recognizing the full rights of black people.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Stuck on Stupid, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

What would it take to be adored by the ‘in’ crowd….

Posted by iusbvision on January 26, 2011

If I wished to be cheered by the hateful, adored by those who hold the truth in contempt, and praised for my tolerance and civility in the elite media, all I would have to do is accuse Sarah Palin of being an accessory to murder. – Chuck Norton

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Bernard Goldberg discusses elite media corruption of MSNBC coverage

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2011

The reporters who engaged in the blood libel over the last two weeks are now boldly exposed as untruthful.

If you didn’t know hat a complete failure that MSNBC’s model was you are about to find out.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Washington Post publishes stereotype laden, hate filled screed against the people of Arizona

Posted by iusbvision on January 17, 2011

This illustrates the chasm between radicalized elite media and normal people.  If a Republican had dared to write a stereotype packed hate screed like this it would be national news.

 

Some excerpts from Amy Silverman in the Washington Post:

And the truth is that few places are as exclusionary as Arizona, where butt-kicking cowboys and Barry Goldwater politics still rule the day, where anyone of Mexican descent better follow the speed limit, or risk getting pulled over and grilled over their right to be here. We are libertarians. Stay out of our big green back yards irrigated with water we can ill afford to use. Don’t even come close. And don’t you dare ask for help.

 

Live here awhile, and you might realize that you haven’t met your neighbors. I’ve lived in the same house for 13 years, and I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been invited into a neighbor’s house. And I don’t even live in an area with particularly high walls or in a gated community.

You don’t see people sit out on the porch much. Kids certainly don’t play in the street anymore. And when we do venture outside, we climb in our cars, crank the A/C and the radio, pick up the cell and don’t even bother to honk our horns. That’s how isolated we are. [Or maybe it’s YOU Amy…. – Editor]

The sunsets are beautiful, sure. But living here can be incredibly depressing. Particularly for the people who’ve earned Arizona the nickname “the do-over state.” This is the land of fresh starts. Get divorced, move to Arizona. Lose your job, move to Arizona. Get out of jail, move to Arizona.

 

The Washington Post ads:

Amy Silverman is the managing editor of Phoenix New Times. She has covered Arizona for 20 years.

 

…. Oh really – and now for the rest of the story…..

 

A Washington contact tells me:

I had assumed, as I suspect many of the Post’s readership did, that Ms Silverman’s newspaper was a leading newspaper in Phoenix.

Wrong assumption! It’s essentially a flimsy free hand-out.

Wikipedia notes her newspaper was originated in 1970 by members of the Students for Democratic Society [SDS]; as some will recall, that was a radical Leftist organization of the 1960s, an outgrowth of the “Intercollegiate Socialist Society”, which published its political manifesto as the “Port Huron Statement” [drafted by none other than Tom Hayden.
“Without being Marxist or pro-communism, they denounced anti-communism as being a social problem and an obstruction to democracy.“

Amy’s newspaper touts these accomplishments

In 2004, published the home address of Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Arpaio is famous for his law and order campaign, and rigid, and very effective outdoor prison in which inmates must wear pink.]

In 2007, published “secret Grand Jury” information.

In 2008, she was invited to spend the day with the John McCain family to write about him and his campaign. Her story’s major emphasis was his “nervously wringing his hands during his radio interview.”
[She later learned that the hand-wringing relieved the pain in his arms which resulted from being tortured as a POW.]

Amy is a commentator for NPR, via KJZZ in Phoenix.

Thanks to the Washington Post for giving Amy national visibility so we could learn more about her and her political philosophy – and her role with NPR. We also hope to learn more about the early political affiliations of the WP editorial staff.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 3 Comments »

Bill Press on the Joy Behar Show. What could go wrong?

Posted by iusbvision on January 12, 2011

To quote Dennis Miller: The whistles on these trains of thought are barely audible.

We could have 20 posts with the most painful examples dumb and dumber from these two, but together their intellect might just reach a prime number. Bill Press has the same problem that all too many in the elite media have in that he has convinced himself that he is a real Oppenheimer. If you don’t believe me just ask him. I am sure he will tell you.

Of course, the word privacy appears no where in the Constitution. It is considered in the penumbra of the First Amendment Freedom of Conscience, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Ellen Weiss at NPR is out after internal review of Juan Williams firing

Posted by iusbvision on January 12, 2011

Just as we have been demonstrating in our Academic Misconduct category, like many universities, most elite media news rooms are creatures of ideological group think. It is just as Juan Williams says, at NPR if you don’t tow the bosses political line you are out. Then they start to suggest that you need a shrink.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Famed Economist Dr. John Lott dissects fraudulent University of Maryland “study” on Fox News

Posted by iusbvision on January 5, 2011

See our previous post where we dissected it HERE. The link also has a great video from our friend Lee Doren of  How the World Works who also dissects the study.

While Doren and myself are well versed in economics, we are not famed PhD’s in the field so it is great to have a man of Dr. Lott’s stature to not only verify our critiques, but add more substance and detail to them in only the way he can.

I encourage all students and faculty to read this piece.

Dr. Lott:

Does watching Fox News rot your brain? According to a report released last month by WorldPublicOpinion.org at the University of Maryland, “Misinformation and the 2010 Election,” the more people watch Fox News, the more they are “misinformed.”

The allegation rapidly became a favorite topic for leading mainstream news outlets including The New York TimesU.S. News and World ReportCBS NewsSlateThe Atlantic. Even major newspapers in Canada and the U.K.covered the report. Of course, left-wing websites — the Talking Point Memo, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos — reveled in the findings.

The report asserted that Fox News viewers getting political survey questions wrong was not just the result of already wrongheaded Republicans watching Fox News: “The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it–though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.”

But the researchers themselves were clearly misinformed and frequently picked incorrect or left-wing biased answers as the “correct” ones, something the uncritical mainstream media apparently never examined. Take the first four questions of the eleven the report focused on.

Question # 1: “Is it your impression that most ECONOMISTS who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation caused job losses, saved or created a few jobs, or saved or created several million jobs?” (emphasis is in the original). The WorldPublicOpinion.org claims that the stimulus “saved or created several million jobs,” citing a report from the Democratically controlled Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that said the increase in jobs was at least 2 million. Any other answer give put the viewer as being “misinformed.”

To back up their claim that “most economists” agreed with this statement, they referenced a March 2010 Wall Street Journal survey: 38 of 54 forecasting economists thought that the stimulus helped. Nonetheless, the University of Maryland researchers — intentionally or unintentionally — exaggerated the claim: the average economist in the survey estimated that the stimulus reduced the unemployment rate in February from 10.4 to 9.7 percent, about one million jobs, not “several million jobs.”

In addition, they avoided acknowledging that there were other surveys where the majority of economists dramatically disagree. One such survey was by the National Association of Business Economics, with 50 of 68 economists concluding that the stimulus had no beneficial impact of the recovery.

Question # 2: “What effect do you think the health reform law will have on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years?” The “correct” answer was that Obamacare would reduce the deficit, and the report cites a March estimate by the CBO that the health care savings would be $124 billion. But this is an old, vastly optimistic left-wing prediction touted by the CBO to get Obamacare passed. Even the Obama administration now admits that their plan will add to the deficit. The CBO itself now acknowledges that they double-counted projected Medicare spending cuts. Correcting that error adds $89 billion to the health care costs over the decade. Another CBO error also underestimated discretionary spending in the new health care law by $60 billion. These errors by themselves, not even counting other problems, flips the math around and shows that Obamacare will increase the deficit.

Question #3: “Do you think that now the American economy is still getting worse or starting to recover?” This question, like the others in the survey, were asked from November 6th to 15th.

The “right” answer was supposed to be that the economy was “starting to recover.” But whether things were getting “worse” depends a lot on what numbers were considered, and the question failed to make it clear precisely what numbers were being refereed to.

In terms of GDP growth, the recession did end in June 2009. Yet, since June 2009, unemployment kept on rising from 9.5 to 9.8 percent. Four million more Americans became unemployed or simply gave up looking for work and left the labor force. Furthermore, with uncertainty over the future rising, temporary jobs have started replacing permanent jobs, with 561,000 permanent jobs disappearing since the recovery started.

Question #4: “Do you think that MOST SCIENTISTS believe that climate change is occurring, not occurring, or views are evenly divided?” (emphasis in the original). Of course, the answer WorldPublicOpinion.org wants was that most scientists believe that climate change is occurring. Again, the question is poorly worded. In particular, it fails to specify what time period is relevant. Have temperatures risen since the end of The Little Ice Age in 1850? Surely, no one disagrees with that. Have temperatures changed much since 1998? Few scientists would claim so. Judging from the WorldPublicOpinion.org’s report, the authors are clearly pushing the man-made global warming viewpoint. But on that score, there is little unanimity. For example, a 2010 survey of American weather forecasters found only 17 percent to believe in man-made global warming. And, as for scientists in general, 9,029 Ph.D.s signed a petition this year disputing man-made global warming claims.

Still other questions were fraught with problems. For instance, “Since January 2009 have your Federal income taxes gone down, stayed the same, or gone up?” That was not a smart formulation when the researchers intended an answer for overall tax rates rather than for each individual’s taxes. And then there are problems with their question about the TARP financial bailout, where the researchers ask about whether most Congressional Republicans supported it. But they can’t even add up the total votes in the House or Senate on the bill which shows that Republicans were literally split 50-50, while 75 percent of Democrats supported it. On their own, House Republicans would never have supported the bill.

The WorldPublicOpinion.org survey is a mess. At best, the survey shows that liberals who conducted the survey simply were not smart or careful enough. If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that those who watched Fox News almost every day had not fallen for left-wing myths to the same extent as other Americans.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011

Paying attention journalism students?

Via the Media Research Center:

Gas prices are “soaring” again, crossing the $3-a-gallon threshold on Dec. 23 for the first time since Oct. 17, 2008. Back then the benchmark was a relief as prices plunged from the highest price ever of $4.11.

Pump prices have been climbing all month, yet network reports downplayed the pain and suffering of consumers. Jim Axelrod of CBS called it “bad news” after reporting some positive economic news on Dec. 28, but concluded “The economy’s not great, says economist Dan Greenhaus, but not terrible either.”

Compare that to past media exaggeration of gas prices. NBC’s Anne Thompson said that “no matter what kind of gas is sold, today it’s now unbelievably expensive” on Aug. 31, 2005. That day the national average for gasoline was $2.62 – but the gas price signs shown in Thompson’s report were much higher at $3.49.

That same night, ABC’s Charles Gibson claimed that gas was approaching $4-a-gallon.

Conversely, as prices fell throughout the summer of 2007, the network news media ignored gas price declines emphasizing “skyrocketing,” “soaring,” and “painfully high” prices over the drop.

What’s the difference between then and now? The president has changed from Bush to Obama, and with it the media’s attitude toward gas prices has shifted.

The Heritage Foundation noted on Dec. 29 that the press pestered Bush about gas costs and the political consequences of high pump prices, but have yet to ask Obama the question. CBS suggested on April 26, 2006, that President Bush needed to “do something” about gas prices.

A few months later, on Aug. 21, 2006, Bush was asked at a press conference: “What do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you’re paying for that, right now?”

Heritage cited further examples of Democrats pressing the White House to “ease” prices (when prices were below $2-a-gallon), and Speaker Nancy Pelosi attacking the president for rising gas prices.

Under Obama, the networks haven’t breathlessly exaggerated gasoline prices as they did under Bush or demanded to know what the president will do to “ease” prices.

More Bad News:

Yet according to Heritage Obama’s policies will continue to make gasoline more expensive.

Heritage wrote: “Now this week, analysts including former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, say Americans could be paying $5/gallon of gasoline by 2012. Investment banks are predicting a return to $100/barrel oil, andOPEC is refusing to raise production. All of this news would be less frightening if the White House were focusing on potential ways to lower energy prices. Instead, President Obama is admittedly fixated with raising them.”

How does Obama plan to raise prices? With further EPA regulations of power plants and oil refineries, and more rules for natural resources on government properties and the ‘de facto moratorium’ on oil drilling.

 

UPDATE

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Washington Post Refuses to Publish Own Poll Showing ObamaCare’s Lowest Popularity Ever

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011

Gotta love the elite media. After all they decide what they think you need to know and leave out what they don’t.

File this one under desperate…

Via Newsbusters:

A new ABC-Washington Post poll found ObamaCare sunk to its lowest popularity yet: 52 percent opposed, and only 43 percent in favor. ABC mentioned the poll without fanfare at the end of a Jake Tapper report on Monday’s World News, and Tapper added this was the health law’s “lowest level of popularity ever.” But Tuesday’s Washington Post reported not one sentence on the poll in the paper – even as they reported in the paper that the same survey found Obama’s tax-and-unemployment-compensation deal has “broad bipartisan support.”

This is the same Post that highlighted the news on Page One on October 20, 2009, when they found a “clear majority” in favor of a socialist “public option” — amid charges they oversampled Democrats.

The numbers weren’t excluded because they arrived late. The Post poll numbers went up on the website yesterday at about 1 pm, under the headline “Health care opponents divided on repeal.” That obscured the numbers a bit, as Cohen found a “slim majority” (not a “clear majority”?) currently oppose ObamaCare:

Overall, 52 percent of those polled oppose the overhaul to the health care system, 43 percent are supportive of it. Fully 86 percent of Republicans are against the legislation; 67 percent of Democrats support it. Independents divide down the middle, with 47 percent in favor and the same number opposed.

Cohen made no mention of that phrase “lowest level of popularity ever.” He did try to suggest that the individual mandate was wildly unpopular — implying other parts of ObamaCare are still worth keeping:

Among the general public, the Kaiser poll showed 68 percent supportive of a repeal of the individual mandate. Of four core components of the health care law tested in the poll, the individual mandate was the one with the highest negatives, by far. Seventy percent of all those polled said they held an unfavorable view of the requirement that everyone carry insurance, including 52 percent who had “strongly unfavorable” opinions.

 

But wait! There’s more! Speaking of oversampling Democrats….

The WashPo poll was posted online December 13th showing 52% opposing ObamaCare, BUT a Rasmussen Reports poll published December 12th shows that 60% favored ObamaCare’s repeal, with 55% favoring repeal the following week and 60% favoring the repeal last week and this week.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Lesson for Journalism Students: Leftist Media Attack Fox News for Memo Reminding Reporters to Always be Skeptical

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011

There are two predominant philosophies of journalism taught in this country. The “Walter Lippmann (so called) ‘objective’ model” and what one of  my J-School profs called the “Looking out for the folks” model. The former is usually presented as the preferred model at most universities (especially the Ivy’s)

The Lippmann Objective Model is anything but objective. The Lippmann model says that journalists should associate themselves with an elite technical class of people so that these experts via/with the journalists can give the “proper” information to the public so that they can “vote the right way”.

At first, the Orwellian nature of the Lippmann Model  is not so pointedly explained, but as time goes on reporters get it and the coverage of the elite media shows it. [If you doubt me I challenge you to follow this LINK and scroll down to the quote from Dr. Rahe and the excerpt from Lippmann’s book – Editor]

For example, the reporter and/or editor has a point of view he wishes to present. So he opens his rolodex and contacts an “expert” he knows will give him the sound-bite he wants and presents him as just an objective expert who they found at random. Or said reporter will have a man on the street section, but the reporter will call a few people he knows to be on that street, complete with the narrative that the reporter knows will present.

Oh? You think I’m kidding? OK just a few examples:

CNN Debates: Unbiased and Undecided Voters Turn Out to be Democrat Operatives (most of whom had appeared on CNN before)

Of course this is a trick commonly used by PR operatives:

Washington Post: Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Ringers

Obama’s Photo Op with Cheering Troops Staged

BUSTED: Democrats putting campaign ringers in town halls falsely claiming to be doctors!

Of course the Associated Press knows this goes on, but only appreciates it when leftists do it:

AP praises Obama for using military for public relations. FLASHBACK: AP condemned Bush accusing him of using the military for public relations.

The “looking out for the folks” model is often quoted by Bill O’Reilly, but Bill, as he will tell you, is more of a commentator than a straight news man. The spirit of the kind of journalism O’Reilly did when he was a straight news man is closer to this model. The “looking out for the folks” model certainly resembles more of the ethical ideal in what people expect from journalism and is what “Lippmann Objective Model” media outlets claim to be on their face.

Enough with the preliminary goodies and on to the meat.

Washington Examiner:

Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be ‘skeptical’

By Mark Tapscott

You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right?

Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better.

Why? Politico’s headline captures the controversy perfectly: “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”

A journalist being skeptical? Who would ever have thought such a thing could be. I don’t know, maybe anybody who has heard this (attributed long ago to a crusty desk editor at the illustrious City News Bureau in Chicago): “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.”

In other words, we journalists are paid to BE SKEPTICAL.

For the record, here’s what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted:

“Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

Now I am from out of town and all, but Sammon’s injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges – report what A claims and what B says about what A claims, but keep your personal views about both A and B out of it.

Note that Sammon includes both those who say the planet has warmed – i.e. global warming advocates – and those who claim the opposite, that the planet has cooled – global warming critics. How much more even-handed – dare I say it, fair and balanced? – can the guy be?

There is also the factual nature of Sammon’s statement that critics question data. Critics DO question the data for a warming planet. He doesn’t demand that his reporters agree with the critics about the data or tell viewers that the critics are right and the global warming advocates are wrong.

Yet, Salon’s headline claims the Fox news executive was “again caught demanding conservative spin.” And the lead that follows makes another false statement, claiming Sammon directed his “anchors and reporters to adopt right-wing spin when discussing the news.”

Are these people so arrogant as to think the rest of us are too stupid to see that Salon totally and completely misrepresented Sammon’s comment?

The back story here, of course, is that Media Matters is doing exactly what billionaire radical liberal financier George Soros paid it $1 million to do, which is to trash Fox News at every opportunity no matter what the facts might be in any given situation.

Watching this campaign unfold, it becomes clear that Fox News drives today’s extremist liberals into the same sort of eye-bulging, irrational, spittle-flying, blind rage that we saw back in the 1950s from the far right whack-jobs in the John Birch Society who claimed Ike was either a fool or a card-carrying commie.

Now, just so everybody reading this knows: Sammon is a former White House reporter for The Examiner. I count him as a friend, a respected colleague and a solid journalist. And Fox News puts me in front of a camera as a talking head once in a while.

So how long you think it will be before Sammon’s critics claim my comments here aren’t credible as a result? The reality is that the left-leaning MSNBC folks sit me down in front of their cameras to bloviate far more frequently than Fox does. Go figure.

So here’s something to ponder when the paid Fox detractors at Media Matters tell you Sammon and I are both former Washington Timesmen and are thus Republican mouthpieces:

I was inducted into the First Amendment Center’s Freedom of Information Hall of Fame a few years ago. I mention this not to boast, but because I was among a bunch of very smart people for whom I have great respect – even though they came predominantly from the liberal side of things.

But I don’t recall seeing anybody from Media Matters among the inductees.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

PBS’s Tavis Smiley Wins Pinhead of the Year Award: Tells Ayaan Hirsi Ali that Christians in America Blow Up People Every Day

Posted by iusbvision on December 31, 2010

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives under a death mark. She needs security 24/7 and likely will for the rest of her life. She made a film with Theo van Gogh about the status of women is Islamic countries. Van Gogh was killed out in the open during the day and  the knife driven through his chest had a note addressed to Ali essentially saying that she was next. Radicalized Muslim communities that function as a state within a state are popping up around Europe and the Western Europeans do not have the will to stand up to it.

Ali escaped a life of forced marriage and virtual slavery from her Islamic family. She escaped, got educated, and became a Member of the Dutch Parliament. When it became clear that her security needs could not be met she came to the United States.

She writes about her experiences and how the West should stand up to preserve our freedom and our culture. Reflexively the progressive secular left in the elite media, which has been taught in American Universities that Western Culture is “the oppressor” and that Christianity is evil, often attacks her and throws the most outrageous false premises at her in an effort to embarrass her. They end up just embarrassing themselves. Watch the following exchange between PBS  Tavis Smiley and Ali.

How can anyone be this deranged, this foolish, this plain stupid? It is not uncommon among the far left folks. I saw this level of idiocy frequently among the campus left. By the way, 162 Muslims have been arrested in the United States in the last two years for plotting against America. How many Christians have been? It happens every day according to Tavis so how about he produce just 100? Anyone care to take that challenge?

With that said, nothing he said is true and anyone with  access to a search engine can find that out in pretty short order. Post offices are not blown up every day. In fact, using Google to search only two threats of blowing up post offices in the US appear; one from a homeless man who wanted money and another from a man who was likely  mentally disturbed as he false reported about an alleged bomb threat to a post office.

No one was called the N word in front of the Capitol Building. The event was being recorded from many angles by a sea of new media recording devices that captured every moment of the event which demonstrated that nothing of the kind happened. A $100,000 reward for evidence of it happening was offered by Andrew Breitbart with no takers. Of the two Democrat politicians who made the false claim, one back-pedaled and the other is the same politician who compared John McCain to Democrat Governor George Wallace  in October 2008.

The only  known acts of violence at Tea Party events have been carried out by far left extremists and paid union thugs who showed up to physically attack the participants. All of this has been reported in detail on this site (see our violence category).

So what do you think? Is Smiley mentally challenged, delusional, as ignorant as the day is long, or just a liar? In any case he has won the coveted title of “Pinhead of the Year”.

“It’s always the same with these bogus equivalences: They start by pretending loftily to find no difference between aggressor and victim, and they end up by saying that it’s the victim of violence who is ‘really’ inciting it” Christopher Hitchens writing about how the elite media, in its reflexive defense of Islamic extremism, uses the most outrageously bogus moral equivalences to try to discredit Ayann Hirsi Ali.

Related:

Liberal Talker Alan Colmes: Muslims aren’t the terror problem, white males are…..

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Stuck on Stupid | Leave a Comment »

Salon Publishes MULTIPLE Calls for Torture, Murder of Sarah Palin

Posted by iusbvision on December 29, 2010

Is anyone surprised? Our friends at Big Journalism caught only one of these, there are more. Below is what we found just browsing for about five minutes. There are thousands of hate screeds against Sarah Palin and Republicans in general on Salon,  many of which contain violence and rape imagery; the few we picked out were some of the most… shall we say… colorful.

By the way THIS is what we mean by Palin Derangement Syndrome…

Via BigJournalism.com:

Liberal online political magazine Salon.com published a letter to the editor Friday that called for the murder of 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The letter was written in response to a mocking article at Salon titled, Good Morning America’s painfully friendly interview with Sarah Palin by Alex Pareene.

Pareene snarkily sums up the GMA interview:

“The interview was basically split into a couple of distinct sections: How awesome is your family, how bad is Barack Obama, how awful are people who criticize you, and how awesome is America?”

The first letter published in response to the article calls for Palin to be electrocuted by a cattle prod by convicted dog abuser Michael Vick:  “Vick gets a pet to torture and we get rid of Palin. A win-win for everyone!”

Michael Vick, the starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, is a convicted felon who spent time in prison for dog fighting and animal cruelty.

That letter has apparently sat in the pole position under the article in the Letters to the Editor section since it was posted “Friday, December 17, 2010 12:33 PM ET.”

The Letters section for the GMA article lists 65 letters published over four pages. Each letter has a “flag” button to call attention to Salon editors about objectionable comments. It seems no one at Salon finds it objectionable for the site to publish an explicit call for murder.

Salon’s Editor at Large  Joan Walsh is a regular on MSNBC and CNN. Will Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough or Wolf Blitzer attack Walsh for prominently publishing a call for the murder of Sarah Palin? Will Walsh do the right thing and publicly apologize to Palin and pull the letter?

How soon will the Democratic Party front group Media Matters for America come along and slurp up this large chunk of vomit from Salon?

So I went to Salon and started looking at the comments – WARNING NOT SAFE FOR WORK –

Friday, December 17, 2010 01:24 PM ET

Palin Will Likely Be Assassinated

If she gets anywhere near the Presidential nomination, she will probably catch a bullet in the head.

I seriously doubt that the corporations who really run America want this stupid twat fucking up shit in D.C.

They prefer a smoother kind of criminal like Obama.

Friday, December 17, 2010 04:23 PM ET

I Shit In Sarah Palin’s Foul Cunt.

Fuck her and fuck her retarded family.

Fuck the GOP.

Fuck Ronald Reagan’s maggot-ridden corpse.

Fuck their evil Jesus and their sick Bible.

Fuck John Wayne and his tiny dick.

Fuck Rush Limbaugh and his cancerous soul.

Fuck George W. Bush and his cocaine-addled peabrain.

Fuck Dick Cheney and his tiny mechanical heart.

Fuck Karl Rove and his self-hating homosexuality.

Fuck Condosleeza Rice and her self-hating racism.

Fuck G.I. Joe, Captain America and The Girl Next Door.

Fuck Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Joseph Smith and every other batshit crazy Mormon huckster.

Fuck Miss America and all the Ships at Sea.

Fuck Barack Obama and his cowardly sellout ass.

Fuck anyone who ever supported our troops.

Fuck our troops.

Fuck God.

Fuck The Flag.

Fuck Apple Pie.

Fuck The Golden Arches.

Fuck Bank of America.

Fuck General Motors.

Fuck Joe Lieberman, Joe McCarthy and Joe the goddamn Plumber.

Fuck the South.

Fuck Texas. Twice.

Fuck the KKK.

Fuck John Birch.

Fuck Barry Goldwater.

And fuck any motherfucker who disagrees with me.

Saturday, December 18, 2010 01:39 AM ET

Calif Mike: The main stream media should stick to the old proven strategy of tearing her apart. There is no real entertainment without blood.

I hear you, brother.

I tried to convince the networks to have that obnoxious dumbass bitch torn apart and eaten alive by starving dogs, but their pussyhole executives wouldn’t buy it.

mm

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad, Violence | 1 Comment »

CBS airs fake George W. Bush book cover…

Posted by iusbvision on December 29, 2010

So what appears on the screen during CBS’ report on new books on Sunday the 19th?

Of course the real cover looks like this:

CBS claims it was an accident. Is anyone buying that story? And why should we from the years of unethical reporting that we have come to expect from CBS

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

AEI Study: Elite Media Spins Economic News Positive when Democrats in Power, Negative When Republicans in Power

Posted by iusbvision on December 28, 2010

To those who pay attention the headline above is no surprise whatsoever. The study completed in 2004 is still bearing out as we and other bloggers have pointed out for almost two years how the elite media spun the bad economic news positive telling us that “most economists” thought that the stimulus package would help much more than it did.  According to the elite media “most economists” were surprised by month after month after month of unexpectedunexpectedunexpectedunexpected bad economic news. Of course to those who were paying attention the news wasn’t unexpected at all.

AEI:

Newspaper headlines reporting on unemployment, gross domestic product, retail sales, and durable goods tended to be negative when a Republican is in the White House.

Economists have been puzzled this year by the persistence with which perceptions about the economy have lagged behind the economic data. For the most recent 12-month period for which we have data, for example, the economy grew almost exactly as fast as it did during the best 12-month period during President Clinton’s two terms. But the economic mood of the country has been much different.

It isn’t just the economy that influences people’s perceptions. In research we just released, we find that media coverage is also an important determinant. We found that newspaper headlines reporting economic news on unemployment, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods tended to be much more frequently negative when a Republican was in the White House. And this was true even after accounting for the economic numbers on which the stories were based and how those numbers were changing over time.

We also found that positive headlines explained whether people thought that the economy was getting better more than the economic variables themselves. Newspapers are indeed important.

There have, of course, been numerous anecdotal claims of media bias. What has been lacking has been a rigorous scientific study of media bias, and our new paper is an attempt to provide just that.

If we limit ourselves to news coverage of economic data, it is possible to get an objective measure of the news behind the stories. Our research team first collected a list of days that important economic news was released for most papers since 1991 and for four major papers and the Associated Press since 1985. We then used Nexis, a computer database of news stories that contains information on 389 newspapers, to gather all of the 12,620 headlines that ran in America’s newspapers covering economic news stories. We excluded follow-up and feature stories because we wanted to be able to link the headlines directly with the numbers on which they were based.

Headlines are relatively easy to classify since they say things are getting better, worse or mixed. For example, on Jan. 31, the government reported that the real GDP had grown 4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2003. The New York Times covered this, appropriately, as good news, writing the headline, “Economy remained strong in 4th quarter, U.S. reports.” At the same time, the Chicago Tribune wrote that “GDP growth disappoints; job worries linger.” Headlines are so divergent, it’s sometimes hard to believe they are referring to the same event.

Actual economic data explains much about the headlines–but far from everything. We found that the incidence of positive coverage during Republican presidencies was fairly steady–but economic news under President Clinton received by far the most positive coverage. This partisan gap or bias (the difference in positive headlines between Republicans and Democrats for the same underlying economic news) consistently implied that Democrats got between 10 and 20 percentage points more positive headlines.

We also examined individual newspapers. Among the top 10 papers, we found strong evidence that the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, and the Washington Postwere much more likely to have positive headlines for Democrats even with the same economic news. The New York Post showed no statistically significant difference. The Los Angeles Times did not tend to treat Republicans and Democrats significantly differently.

Even including the Los Angeles Times, Ronald Reagan, a president who presided over one of the most vigorous economies in our history, still received seven percent fewer positive news stories than Clinton after accounting for the different economic conditions.

What motivates newspapers and their copy editors to pick the headlines that they do is not a question we tried to answer. Whether these motivations are conscious or not, a partisan gap exists, and it helps explain one of this year’s biggest economic puzzles. Unfortunately, the recent charges of political bias at CBS may only be a small part of the problem with the news.

 

 

 

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Univ of Maryland survey on Fox News makes us ponder who is more dishonest, leftist academics or elite media journalists – UPDATED

Posted by Chuck Norton on December 18, 2010

First the news, then the analysis… [and see the update below!]

UPDATE IV Breaking! – Famed Economist Dr. John Lott dissects fraudulent University of Maryland “study” on Fox News

Via The Blaze

The University of Maryland released a study claiming that regular viewers of Fox News are the “most misinformed” when it comes to knowledge of American politics.

The UMD-commissioned study — “Misinformation and the 2010 Election: A Study of the US Electorate” — looked to judge how likely viewers of various news outlets were to believe false information (note: the study did not actually measure any sort of actual misinformation presented by some media outlets). According to the study, Fox viewers were “significantly more likely” to believe the following “misinformation”:

–Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

–Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

–The economy is getting worse (26 points)

–Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

–The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

–Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

–The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

–When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

–And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

FNC has since fired back at the report, defending the content of its broadcasts and judgment of its viewers while simultaneously dismissing the study and its conclusions.  Via the New York Times:

In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.”

Mr. Clemente oversees every hour of objective news programming on Fox News, which is by far the nation’s most popular cable news channel.

For the record, the Princeton Review says the University of Maryland ranks among the “Best Northeastern Colleges.” It was No. 19 on the Review’s list of “Best Party Schools.”

I am going to show you the depths of planning that these academics had to go through to get these results. Before we do that let us examine what a REAL polling and survey research organization like the Pew Research Center  (2) has to say.

According to Pew the most informed newspaper readers are those who read the Wall Street Journal. The most informed radio listeners are those who listen to Rush Limbaugh. And this year the most informed television viewers were the audience of Sean Hannity.

Asked a series of four questions to test their knowledge about politics and current events, just 14% of the public got all four correct – as many got all four wrong (15%). Two-in-ten got three correct, 26% two and 25% one. Regular readers, viewers or listeners of most media sources outscored the general public.

People were asked which party currently controls the House of Representatives  (Democrats), to identify the post held by Eric Holder (U.S. attorney general), which company is run by Steve Jobs (Apple) and which country has an active volcano that disrupted international air travel earlier this year (Iceland).

Overall, seven-in-ten Americans know that Democrats have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. No media audience did poorly on this question, and 90% or more of the Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly audiences got this right.

Far fewer know that Eric Holder is the attorney general. Just 22% got this question right. Wall Street Journal readers and Hannity viewers performed best on this question, with 56% of each audience answering it correctly.

About four-in-ten (41%) know that Steve Jobs is the head of Apple. Wall Street Journal (85%) and New York Times (80%) readers are especially likely to know this. Six-in-ten know that the volcanic eruption that recently disrupted international air travel is in Iceland. Journal (82% correct) and Times (81%) readers also did especially well on this question.

Examining the bogus Univ of Maryland survey –

Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

OK lets tackle this one. We know that the stimulus according to an analysis by the Federal Reserve created almost exclusively temporary jobs and some government jobs at an average cost of 400,000 per job. It was promised that unemployment would not rise above 8% if the stimulus was passed and yet it went to 10%, and over 17% if you use normal methods and not the government formula. The stimulus which failed resulted in added uncertainty in the economy which undoubtedly cost jobs. If that money had been used as tax cuts it would have helped create jobs. But the question here is “most economists”.

Most people know what an issue is and might not know what a specific group thinks about it. For example: “Most economists” did not see the mortgage collapse coming. “Most economists” thought that the stimulus package would help much more than it did, “most economists” were surprised by month after month of unexpected, unexpected, unexpected, unexpected bad economic news. “Most economists” have a very poor record of predictions as any examination of government projections shows that most of them are not just wrong, but not even close, because they almost exclusively use static Keynesian models.

This  also depends on what group of economists you ask and if most of that group were to agree on the question.Fox News does not bring on much Keynesian economic ‘talent’. Most economists and financial analysts that appear on Fox are either Austrian School, or followers of Hayek, Friedman, or a mix like Mankiw. These are people whose predictions come true far more than the ones that the AP or Reuters use.

Fox News analysts mostly said that the stimulus wouldn’t work, “most economists” that appeared in the elite media said the opposite, look who ended up being right. The same can be said about the opening affects of ObamaCare, the flat-lining of the economy due to uncertainty etc etc.

It would be fair to say that most of the economists that the viewers have been exposed to might feel the way the respondents answered and if that is the case the answers makes perfect sense and by no means makes them ignorant people.

[It only makes sense that if you poll a group about a subset of people that they are least exposed to that they would get more incorrect answers about that particular subset.- Editor]

Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

Again according to “most economists” that like static Keynesian models that do not take into account game theory or what is known as the “adverse selection spiral”, then I could see the Univ of Maryland’s point. But the problem is that even Obama’s own Medicare Actuary agrees with conservative economists and have said that it will raise costs. So far the analysts at Fox have been more accurate on the opening effects of ObamaCare [We have been cataloging the statements of people on both sides of this debate if anyone doubts it I will be happy to start producing the quotes, but most of them are already published on this web site so be sure to see our “Health Law” category – Editor]. Remember what we told you above, most economists of what group of economists surveyed? If I surveyed Austrian School economists how would most of them have answered?

– The economy is getting worse (26 points)

I found this one to be pretty amusing. Some indicators go up in a month and some go down. This question greatly depends on who you ask and/or what indicator you wish to look at. The Keynesian economic growth formula can be artificially inflated with government deficit spending. Since government spending in the Keynesian formula is treated the same as consumer spending and investment spending all the government has to do is take out a loan or print up cash and whaaalla – instant short term economic growth.

Even with an artificially inflated growth rate of 1-1.5% the truth is that we need REAL private sector economic growth of over 1.5% just to break even with people coming of age and entering the workforce. They may call the inflated 1.5% government economic growth number an improving economy, but in economic reality we are still taking on water. Fox viewers know this. Elite media viewers have been told every month for almost two years (up until August/September) that things were getting better and “summer of recovery” etc.

– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

This one really got me to laugh. All scientists agree that climate change is occurring. Climate is always changing, the question is what is changing, how, and does man have much to do with it. In that regard there are growing numbers of scientists and people that reject AGW alarmism.

–The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

The keyword here is ANY. Every Democrat package has targeted tax cuts. Tax cuts that are so targeted it means you don’t get them. A tax cut if you outfit your home in solar panels and other green tax breaks etc. They did pass a payroll schedule reduction, but that was just a reduction in the deduction tables, the tax rate you pay was the same so come April 15th you had to pay more or get a smaller refund.

–Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

This depends on how it is measured. Remember those changes in the deduction tables we mentioned. Well those who have started doing their taxes are writing bigger checks or getting smaller refunds as a result, so they think that their taxes are going up.

–When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

Where Univ of Maryland…. in the House or in the Senate? Most Republicans in the House did oppose it. Here is the final vote in the House on TARP I – http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-681 with 91 Republicans for and 108 against. Here is Tarp II – http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-26 with 19 voting for and 156 voting against. It would seem that Univ of Maryland only looked at the Senate vote.

–And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

Again this depends on how it was asked. Do I believe that Obama was born in the United States? Yes I do because I saw the newspaper announcement and that seems like pretty good evidence. Is it CLEAR that he was? That depends, some of his own relatives say he was born in Kenya so why isn’t it clear to them? Some may believe that he was born here but are not completely CLEAR because he has not released his long form birth certificate. The question in this regard is so vague that it is useless for scientific purposes. Clearness implies transparency and Obama has not delivered on that. As far as I know no host or anchor at Fox has pushed a story and claimed that Obama is not a citizen. The study doesn’t show us that this every happened on Fox.

It is because of the vagueness and the nature of the questions that this survey could never withstand the peer review process and was just released as it was. The ideas of being asked about what a subset of a group of people think (like the “most economists” question) would be laughed at. It is better and more scientific to ask direct questions about issues, not what they think some subset might think of them.

This is exactly why far left journalists aren’t trusted by people because of spin that becomes dishonest, just like this “survey”. If you think this scholarship is shoddy, wait till you see the status of climate science.

UPDATE I – Flashback 2007 – Rasmussen Poll:

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

If I worked for the University of Maryland I would present it this way:

Democrats are twice as likely to be misinformed conspiracy theorists (35%) than the populace at large (18%) with 26% of Democrats not sure how misinformed they are. Republicans, most of whom watch Fox News, reject such uninformed views 7-1. On knowledge of great historical events Fox News viewers are far more informed than Democrats who watch CNN or MSNBC.

UPDATE II Big Journalism reports that money for the study came from the Tides Foudation and George Soros. Of course to the informed that is no surprise whatsoever.

It is a big problem with medical academics being paid to conduct studies and writings with a predetermined conclusion. Sometimes the writings are pre-written and the academic just puts his name to it for a check. Then we found out about the millions that eco-groups, Marxist groups, George Soros/Tides, alternative energy companies, governments, and investment banks like Goldman Sachs (they want to trade the carbon and get a fee for each trade) have been pumping billions into alarmist scholarship propaganda. Now this.

UPDATE III – “How the World Works” tests claims from the “study” and the University of Maryland Study assumes that SOME government claims about the stimulus etc are gospel. They did not actually go out and survey economists. But when you look at the actual government report that the Maryland Study cites (a CBO report) the report admits that economists it used were in conflict about the multiplier/job effect:

Posted in 2012, Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

Associated Press Article on Palin Haiti Trip a Series of Lies

Posted by iusbvision on December 14, 2010

The AP is on a tear lately with the false narratives and attacks. This is the status of what Palin called the “lamestream media” and it makes you wonder if a one of these reporters actually went to J-school.

A suggestive AP photo started this false narrative – Huffington Post Blasts Sarah Palin for Getting “Movie Set” Treatment in Haiti – Secret Hair Stylist Ends Up Being Daughter Bristol

Then ABC played editing games with Sarah Palin’s interview with Barbara Walters –ABC Edits Out Substantive Parts of Sarah Palin’s Answer on What She Reads

Now this via the nice folks at US4P:

The Associated Press provided another example as to why the media cannot be trusted to cover anything Governor Palin does fairly. AP “reporter” Jonathan Katz, wrote an article about the governor’s recent trip to Haiti with Franklin Graham and Samaritan’s Purse. Katz opens his article by saying:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin began a tightly stage-managed visit to Haiti on Saturday in which she visited cholera clinics while avoiding crowds and the press.

“Stage-managed” eh? As to imply that this is just some sort of staged political photo-op, no doubt. It wasn’t, but regardless it is not Jonathan Katz’ job as an AP reporter to make that assumption in the first place.

He then goes on to say (emphasis mine):

Palin, who traveled in part by helicopter, provided access on her tour solely to the U.S. cable network Fox News.

Graham’s organization, Samaritan’s Purse, refused to discuss Palin’s itinerary with other media and asked Haitian and American reporters to leave its compounds, citing a “security lockdown.”

It should be noted that Greta Van Susteren was asked by Franklin Graham (this is not the first time Greta has accompanied Graham on an overseas trip) to come to Haiti, it wasn’t Governor Palin who set that up.

Rebecca Mansour weighed in on Twitter to say:

Jonathan Katz of the Associated Press is a liar. He knows very well that Samaritan’s Purse was in charge of press in Haiti, not Gov. Palin.

Also

I told him myself repeatedly. He also knows very well that for security reasons, Samaritan’s Purse did not want to release their itinerary.

Katz and others in the media seem to be saying two different things in their articles about Governor Palin’s trip to Haiti. They imply it was a photo-op on one hand, then complain about a lack of access on the other. So which is it? I gather this is just more, ‘throw the kitchen sink‘ at Governor Palin to see what sticks.

Jonathan Katz then writes:

Associated Press television journalists saw Palin talking with foreign aid workers. She wore cargo pants, a T-shirt and designer sunglasses on her first trip outside the United States since speaking to investors in Hong Kong last year. That speech was also closed to the media.

Why is JonathanKatz reporting on Governor’s Palin’s wardrobe? The last time I checked, Katz wasn’t a fashion reporter. Who cares what Governor Palin wore on a humanitarian mission? Some might say that it was sexist of Katz to include that in his article. I’ll leave that up to readers to decide for themselves.

By the way, as Ian noted earlier, Governor Palin and Franklin Graham held a press conference on Sunday in Haiti from the Samaritan’s Purse camp. So, no this trip was not closed to the media. You can see a photo from that presser here.

Update: I was just reminded that the Hong Kong speech was not closed to the media. Katz was wrong about that as well. The Wall Street Journal covered the Hong Kong event here.

mm

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | 1 Comment »

ABC Edits Out Substantive Parts of Sarah Palin’s Answer on What She Reads

Posted by iusbvision on December 13, 2010

[gigya src=”http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UuzSU2G” width=”518″ height=”419″ quality=”high” wmode=”transparent” allowFullScreen=”true” ]

This is why you NEVER do an interview with anyone in the elite media without having your own cameraman take film of the entire interview.

Sarah Palin reads CS Lewis, fine, but serious books about the law, philosophy and the Supreme Court… well we can’t have that as it goes against the narrative ABC wants to propagate so an important substantive fact is left out; namely Palin’s mention of “Liberty and Tyranny” by Mark Levin.

Expectedly MSNBC goes after Palin for mentioning CS Lewis. One of their pundits even said that Lewis is “just a guy who writes kids books”. Of course anyone who is educated knows that C.S. Lewis is considered a great writer on many subjects such as theology, philosophy, government etc. I wonder what other facts ABC edited out this time.

ABC and CBS in the infamous 2008 interviews edited out substantive sections to several of her answers to make it look like she had no substance.

Levin states what he learned in the video below, but I believe that Levin gets it wrong in making it “about him”.  

Mark Levin is president of Landmark Legal Foundation. Previously he served as Landmark’s director of legal policy for more than three years. He has worked as an attorney in the private sector and as a top adviser and administrator to several members of President Reagan’s cabinet. Levin served as chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General, Edwin Meese; deputy assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Department of Education; and deputy solicitor of the U.S. Department of Interior. He holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude, and a J.D. from Temple University School of Law.

Mark is a frequent contributor to, The Corner on National Review Online.

Mark Levin is also the author of the best selling books, Men in Black, Rescuing Sprite and Liberty and Tyranny.

Levin’s book “Men in Black” is the best selling book on the history of the Supreme Court of all time.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

Huffington Post Blasts Sarah Palin for Getting “Movie Set” Treatment in Haiti – Secret Hair Stylist Ends Up Being Daughter Bristol

Posted by iusbvision on December 13, 2010

I just laugh when I see Arianna Huffington claim that her smear site is America’s internet newspaper with “real journalism”.

The Huffington Post blasts Sarah Palin almost every day and almost every the narrative the present is nothing short of Orwellian.

The following is just one example of many. When the Republic of Georgia (on Russia’s southern border) was considering applying for NATO membership. ABC’s John Gibson asked Governor Palin if she supported Georgia’s entry into NATO and Governor Palin articulated the same position that Obama, McCain, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton held on the issue. The Senate even passed a unanimous resolution calling for Georgia’s entry into NATO. Yet when Palin answered that Georgia should be admitted and explained that NATO by treaty is a mutual defense pact; the Huffington Post reacted with the headline, “Palin Talks About Invading Russia” – LINK.

Today’s Huffington Post:

Palin Does Haiti Cholera: How’s My Hair? (and, Did AP Lend a Curl?)

If I find the fantastically clever Sarah Palin to be one of the shallowest and blatantly self-serving politicians, err, political celebrities I’ve ever seen, it doesn’t stop me from taking pause upon seeing these AP shots from Franklin Graham’s cholera treatment center in Haiti.

Damn right it’s revolting seeing Sarah getting her hair made up like this field hospital is her movie set …

This is what Arianna calls “real journalism”. “Sarah getting her hair made up like this field hospital is her movie set”. The narrative complete with attitude implies that Sarah is vain and only cares about how she will look on TV when she is surrounded by suffering. The reality is that the woman next to Sarah is not some high paid makeup artist, rather it is her daughter Bristol who just took a moment to fix a spot on her mother’s hair.

It is amazing how much emotionalism, intent and action a hater can add into a picture’s narrative in spite of the fact that there is no truth whatsoever to what the hater’s mind created.

Notice the AP leaves out "At left is daughter Bristol" - that was no accident folks, these reporters followed the Palin's on their entire trip. This is the AP's way of making Palin appear vain and is also yet another sexist slap. The Huffington Post fell for that narrative hook, line & sinker. This is a fine example of what is called "Attitude Change Propaganda" or ACP. ACP is designed to infuse the reader with a negative feeling by implying a false narrative by using careful ommission of facts presented with an attitude.

 

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

New poll says nearly half of all doctors will retire or make significant changes to practice due to ObamaCare

Posted by iusbvision on December 12, 2010

This is the third poll to say this. The first two were the Medicus Poll and the IBD Poll.

IBD:

When we said nearly half of U.S. doctors might close their practices or retire early rather than live under the Democrats’ health overhaul, we were heavily criticized. The critics, though, were wrong.

Four in nine doctors responding to an IBD/TIPP poll sent out in August 2009 said they “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passed what has become known as ObamaCare. That means as many as 360,000 physicians have plans to be doing something other than treating the growing number of patients in this country.

The doctors also told us — 67% to 22%, with 11% not responding — that they expected fewer students to apply for medical school in the future if the plan became law.

Given these views, it’s no surprise that 71% were doubtful that the government would be able to cover the 47 million uninsured Americans with better care at lower costs, which ObamaCare supporters have promised.

Other findings from our poll of 1,376 doctors included: six in 10 agreeing that the Democrats’ plan would strip drug companies of the incentives they need to make lifesaving pharmaceuticals, and 65% believing that a government overhaul would lead to lower-quality care for seniors.

The critics said our poll was not credible, was “shabby” and “garbage.” They accused IBD of being partisan, pursuing an agenda, trying to sway gullible readers with shameless journalism.

Useful rhetoric for keeping the left stirred up, but it was nothing more than an attempt to poison findings the critics didn’t like.

Now a Merritt Hawkins survey of 2,379 doctors for the Physicians Foundation completed in August has vindicated our poll. It found that 40% of doctors said they would “retire, seek a nonclinical job in health care, or seek a job or business unrelated to health care” over the next three years as the overhaul is phased in.

Of those who said they planned to retire, 28% are 55 or younger and nearly half (49%) are 60 or younger.

A larger portion (74%) said they plan to make “one or more significant changes in their practices in the next one to three years, a time when many provisions of health reform will be phased in.”

In addition to retirement, and finding nonclinical jobs elsewhere, those changes include working part time, closing practices to new patients, employment at a hospital, cutting back on the number of patients and switching to a cash or concierge practice.

A deeper look at the results reveals eight in 10 believe ObamaCare “will erode the viability of the private practice model” while six in 10 are convinced they will be compelled to “close or significantly restrict” their practices to at least one category of patient.

Over half (56%) said they believe the government takeover will affect the quality of care they are able to provide their patients and 86% said doctors weren’t “adequately represented to policymakers and the public during the run-up to passage of health reform.”

It’s significant that the Physicians Foundation survey was taken from the membership of the American Medical Association.

After initially indicating opposition to ObamaCare, that group supported the legislation. For that reason, Dr. Marc Siegel said Tuesday on Fox News that he would be “more worried about non-AMA members and what they have to say.”

We think that we already covered that concern with our 2009 poll.

Doctors simply don’t like what the Democrats have force-fed them. A large segment of the healing profession says it’s willing to close its doors rather than endure the problems that will be created by the overhaul.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of outcome that’s expected when lawmakers leave common sense behind and work far outside their moral and constitutional authority.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

FBI: Hate Crimes Down in 2009 – So Much for the Elite Media’s Tea Party is ‘Racist’ Narrative…

Posted by iusbvision on December 11, 2010

The Tea Party is taking power in the Congress and is likely to solidify that power in 2012. If the Tea Party is so racist and evil as the elite media and their comrades in the Democrat leadership claim, would we not see hate crimes and such on the rise? Especially since most Independents and many Democrat voters joined the Tea Party in recent elections?

Of course it was all nonsense and just served to further minimalize an already distrusted antique media culture.

FBI: Hate Crimes and Anti-Religious Offenses Declined In 2009

The FBI says the number of reported hate crimes dropped significantly in 2009 from the previous year, to their lowest point in more than 15 years, despite the deepening recession and growing social tensions. Anti-religious crimes also declined, although attacks against Jewish targets continued to far outstrip incidents aimed at Muslims and Islamic sites.

Whether that downward trend — and the proportionally low number of anti-Muslim incidents — continued into 2010 will only come to light in next year’s report. Given the supercharged political atmosphere that marked this election year, and flashpoints like the so-called ground zero mosque controversy and the Koran-burning threats that sparked numerous attacks on Muslims, the numbers could spike.

Overall, the numbers represent a drop of 15 percent in all hate crimes to the lowest number reported since 1994, outstripping the 5.5 percent decline in violent crime in 2009 and the 4.9 percent drop in property crimes.

Attacks against Jews and Jewish sites accounted for more than 70 percent of the 2009 incidents against religious targets, while Muslims were targeted in just over 9 percent of the incidents. Both groups have relatively small communities, a few million in each case, as opposed to the nation’s more than 65 million Roman Catholics, for example. The FBI tallied 51 anti-Catholic incidents in total in 2009, 38 against Protestants, and 10 against atheists and agnostics.

Source

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

MSNBC Makes Democrats Happy – GE Gets Special Favors from Government

Posted by iusbvision on December 11, 2010

IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton

This is exactly what I have said is going on for a long time. I said this for a number of reasons. The first is most obvious, as a business model MSNBC has been run at a loss – and “at a loss” we mean that it is run below opportunity costs. This means that the network could use a model that generates more profits, but profits is not why MSNBC does what it does, it does so to ingratiate its parent company to the Democrats in power (and lifetime federal bureaucrats who tend to be democrats). While some of the reason may very well be ideology by the owners and those who run the network, for leftists in the private sector money almost always trumps ideology.

A fact that has been brought to light when reports surfaced that CNBC asked Rick Santelli to knock off the Anti-Obama policy rants, rants which gained the network great publicity and no doubt ratings. Santelli’s accurate explanation of what the “business street” thought about current policy was making him into a celebrity super star and favorite of the people. This could only have been a big plus for CNBC. Now Mett Nesto is likely facing the axe as well for being so tough on the administration.

What you are about to read is yet another quintessential example of how wrong Washington DC has become.

Today we have yet another example of this and to explain it are my friends from Accuracy in Media:

In a “slobber alert,” a blog known as the “NYTPicker” called Sunday’s Times puff-piece story about GE a “wet kiss” that was designed to get the reporter, Steve Lohr, an exclusive interview with chairman Jeffrey Immelt.

But the Times is not alone. While excoriating Capitol Hill Republicans for insisting on an extension of current tax rates, which they call “tax cuts for the rich,” MSNBC commentators such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are giving plenty of “wet kisses” to GE by failing to cover the unfolding scandal involving how Immelt used his high-level Obama Administration connections to collect billions of dollars from the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

GE owns media properties NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.

The blogger wrote that New York Times reporter Steve Lohr had “fallen prey to that classic corporate gambit—access to the CEO for an ‘exclusive’ interview, and a guided tour of exactly what the company wants the public to see, and nothing else. Beyond that, Lohr excluded from his epic piece the most recent—and damaging—public-relations blow to the company’s reputation: Thursday’s revelation that GE borrowed $16 billion from the Federal Reserve in the fall of 2008, well before anyone realized the depth of troubles with the company’s credit.”

Charles Ortel, managing director of Newport Value Partners, was also amazed. He told AIM, “How does Steve Lohr write a five-page article on GE without addressing its soaring debt level and dwindling domestic revenues, profits and free cash flows from continuing non-finance operations?”

Ortel told AIM in a column last week that GE’s intrinsic net worth is about $2 a share, compared to its high of $60 and current price of $16.

However, the Lohr piece was decidedly upbeat and ran under the headline, “G.E. Goes With What It Knows: Making Stuff.”

Playing catch-up with former Times reporter Jeff Gerth at ProPublica, who had the story on December 2, the Times on December 5 reported, “Newly disclosed records show that during the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve essentially lent $16.1 billion to General Electric by buying short-term corporate i.o.u.’s from the company at a time when the public market for such debt had nearly frozen.” The story noted that Immelt sat on the nine-member board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, an obvious conflict of interest.

The paper added that “The New York Fed is the most powerful of the Federal Reserve’s 12 branches and was charged with carrying out various emergency programs that supported financial markets during the crisis.” How convenient.

Interestingly and ironically, Immelt is a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which was supposed to help dig America out of the economic and financial crisis.

Even bigger issues, Ortel says, are (a) GE’s drawdown of some $60 billion under the FDIC- backed loan program starting in November 2008 and the way GE wangled itself into this program even though its financial operations are not truly regulated, and (b) GE’s sale of $12 billion of common stock during the depth of the crisis.

We are waiting for MSNBC commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow to demonstrate their intellectual independence of thought and action by subjecting their corporate bosses to scrutiny over their financial dealings involving taxpayer money.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Washington Post & Accuracy in Media Slam Sean Penn Movie as “Full of Lies”

Posted by iusbvision on December 10, 2010

I wrote about the Plame non-scandal scandal at length in The Preface and in a large term paper on “attitude change propaganda”. I am gratified that the Washington Post editors did the right thing in their recent editorial, but the Washington Post was as guilty as anyone else in reporting the lies about this issue and repeated them regularly.

At first, the Post (along with the rest of the elite media) would just report the usual lies; that Plame was outed by the White House, that she was undercover and that she lost her career as a secret agent as a result of her exposure. All of this and more was debunked in the official investigations.

But as it became more clear that it was Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame who were liars, the Washington Post did something very interesting which made them the focus of my paper on propaganda. On page one and two the Post would report the usual lies about this story as if they were true, and often on the very same day they would write an editorial that was buried in the paper telling the truth about the matter. This happened repeatedly. Do the editors at the Washington Post actually edit and check the accuracy of their reporters and/or the wire stores they feature prominently, or do they just write a daily column and call it an editorial?

The largest misconception is that Valerie Plame was a secret agent at or near the time the events unfolded. The truth is that Plame was outed many years before by secret documents that were leaked which rendered her a desk jockey at the CIA’s  WMD  Division at Langley. If anyone doubts that may I remind you that when this unfolded Plame had young twins at home, so unless the CIA is in the habit of sending pregnant moms to be with twins overseas undercover you are just going to have to accept that she was put on desk duty.

Plame was listed in Joe Wilson’s Who’s Who entry. Plame made contributions to Democrats listing a known CIA front business as her place of employment. Her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA (as one intrepid reporter went knocking on doors). She was not 006 by any objective measure.

The Washington Post continued their peculiar behavior recently as Accuracy in Media points out:

While the paper said [in its editorial] it hoped that George W. Bush’s version of events would be vindicated by historians, the Post’s “Reliable Sources” gossip column had run a big article about  the public relations blitz for the movie and its various premiers in Washington, D.C. Plame “is more than happy with ‘Fair Game,’ the movie based on her memoir,” the article said. No kidding.

So the “troubling trend” was in evidence at the Post itself, albeit in a different section of the paper.

 

Indeed Washington Post, where was the reporters fact check in the story linked? The fact that the film was made from Plame’s memoir and that she is happy with it shows that Plame is not just a proven liar, which the evidence has demonstrated and even the Washington Post admits, but rather she is a continuous and flaming one [not the language we like to use here but unfortunately reality demands it – Editor].

To read both of the excellent pieces from Accuracy in Media you can access them HERE and HERE.

Washington Post:

Hollywood myth-making on Valerie Plame controversy

WE’RE NOT in the habit of writing movie reviews. But the recently released film “Fair Game” – which covers a poisonous Washington controversy during the war in Iraq – deserves some editorial page comment, if only because of what its promoters are saying about it. The protagonists portrayed in the movie, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV and former spy Valerie Plame, claim that it tells the true story of their battle with the Bush administration over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Ms. Plame’s exposure as a CIA agent. “It’s accurate,” Ms. Plame told The Post. Said Mr. Wilson: “For people who have short memories or don’t read, this is the only way they will remember that period.”

We certainly hope that is not the case. In fact, “Fair Game,” based on books by Mr. Wilson and his wife, is full of distortions – not to mention outright inventions. To start with the most sensational: The movie portrays Ms. Plame as having cultivated a group of Iraqi scientists and arranged for them to leave the country, and it suggests that once her cover was blown, the operation was aborted and the scientists were abandoned. This is simply false. In reality, as The Post’s Walter Pincus and Richard Leiby reported, Ms. Plame did not work directly on the program, and it was not shut down because of her identification. [Translation – she made it up – Editor]

The movie portrays Mr. Wilson as a whistle-blower who debunked a Bush administration claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger. In fact, an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee [The bi-partisan committee was unanimous in its findings – Editor] found that Mr. Wilson’s reporting did not affect the intelligence community’s view on the matter [In fact Wilson’s report to the CIA bolstered the case that Saddam was trying to obtain more uranium according to that very same Senate Intelligence Committee Report – Editor] , and an official British investigation found that President George W. Bush’s statement in a State of the Union address that Britain believed that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger was well-founded.

“Fair Game” also resells the couple’s story that Ms. Plame’s exposure was the result of a White House conspiracy. A lengthy and wasteful investigation by a special prosecutor found no such conspiracy – but it did confirm that the prime source of a newspaper column identifying Ms. Plame was a State Department official, not a White House political operative. [Think about it, you lie to the newspapers while telling them that the President is a liar; and you expect that the Washington press core won’t track down the fact that it was your wife, Valerie Plame, who sent a memo to her boss recommending that Wilson be sent to Niger? The Senate Intelligence Committee investigators confirmed that as well. Our question still remains, why was Wilson not required to sign a non-disclosure contract? Could it be that the infamous Wilson letter was the goal of the entire affair? – Editor]

Hollywood has a habit of making movies about historical events without regard for the truth; “Fair Game” is just one more example. But the film’s reception illustrates a more troubling trend of political debates in Washington in which established facts are willfully ignored. Mr. Wilson claimed that he had proved that Mr. Bush deliberately twisted the truth about Iraq, and he was eagerly embraced by those who insist the former president lied the country into a war. Though it was long ago established that Mr. Wilson himself was not telling the truth – not about his mission to Niger and not about his wife – the myth endures. We’ll join the former president in hoping that future historians get it right.

 

mm

 

 

 

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, True Talking Points | 4 Comments »

MSNBC Devotes ‘News’ Time to Asking if Bristol Palin Has a Facebook Ghost Writer

Posted by iusbvision on December 7, 2010

More of the same from MSNBC which has become the network of hate. You don’t see Republicans attacking candidates (or former candidates) kids like this and you don’t see this nonsense on FOX.

Via NewsBusters:

MSNBC Anchor Thomas Roberts began by reporting on Bristol’s high school transcript.

ROBERTS: Some people are saying that maybe Bristol has a ghost writer. As I said, she graduated from high school –

SMALL: Maybe?

ROBERTS: Has roughly a 3.5, a 3.5 grade point average. So smart young lady.

SMALL: Right.

ROBERTS:  But there’s been postings on her page where she used the word “canard.”

SMALL: Canard. I know a dude, I know a guy named Canard. That’s how black I am. Spelled with a K. Don’t even think about the words she used. If she’s using subjects and predicates together in a sentence, somebody else is writing it for her.

ROBERTS: Well, it just seemed like, you know, there were some words didn’t seem like they would be in the vocabulary, or in the firing back of, you know –

SMALL: She never used the word canard in her life.

ROBERTS: You know, I had to go to Dictionary.com to look it up.

SMALL:  If I didn’t have a friend named canard, I wouldn’t use it either. So come on.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

Senator Kyl Repeatedly Corrects Schieffer: No Tax ‘Cuts’ for Rich, Just Preserving Existing Rates

Posted by iusbvision on December 7, 2010

As usual the elite media parrots the Democrats rhetoric and misleading premises hook line and …

Via NewsBusters:

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Top Scientist Resigns from American Physical Society: says global warming is a scam – scientists corrupted by big money

Posted by iusbvision on December 6, 2010

Here we go ….. and be sure to read every delicious word.

RWB News As reported by the Gateway Pundit:  Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara.  He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

From the UK Telegraph (What! No American elite media coverage?):

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

More Hadley Center Global Warming Horror Claims Debunked by Real Science

Posted by iusbvision on December 6, 2010

Yet another horrifying claim by global warming alarmist PhD’s debunked by real science. Reporting of the real science by the UK Guardian. Notice how American press wont cover this stuff?

 

The Global Warming Alarmist Claim:

Last year [2009], researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre reported that a 2C rise above pre-industrial levels, widely considered the best-case scenario, would still see 20-40% of the Amazon die off within 100 years. A 3C rise would see 75% of the forest destroyed by drought in the next century, while a 4C rise would kill 85%.

 

OMG the horror of it all:

According to a study of ancient rainforests, trees may be hardier than previously thought. Carlos Jaramillo, a scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), examined pollen from ancient plants trapped in rocks in Colombia and Venezuela. “There are many climactic models today suggesting that … if the temperature increases in the tropics by a couple of degrees, most of the forest is going to be extinct,” he said. “What we found was the opposite to what we were expecting: we didn’t find any extinction event [in plants] associated with the increase in temperature, we didn’t find that the precipitation decreased.”

In a study published todayin Science, Jaramillo and his team studied pollen grains and other biological indicators of plant life embedded in rocks formed around 56m years ago, during an abrupt period of warming called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. CO2 levels had doubled in 10,000 years and the world was warmer by 3C-5C for 200,000 years.

Contrary to expectations, he found that forests bloomed with diversity. New species of plants, including those from the passionflower and chocolate families, evolved quicker as others became extinct. The study also shows moisture levels did not decrease significantly during the warm period. “It was totally unexpected,” Jaramillo said of the findings.

 

It gets better:

Jaramillo found that the plants he studied seemed to become more efficient with their water use when it became more scarce….. “What the fossil record is showing is that plants have already the genetic variability to cope with high temperature and high levels of CO2.

 

Another one bites the dust…

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

George Soros Has ‘Fun’ Subversively & Adversely Affecting Societies; Lays Out His Plan For America

Posted by iusbvision on November 25, 2010

Notice that Soros makes it clear in his books that he considers the United States to be a repressive regime because of capitalism, freedom, individual states and national sovereignty. This video touches on this some but in his books Soros really elaborates upon it. For those of you who do not know, Soros is sugar daddy number one for the Democratic Party and its various organizations.

Thanks to The Blaze for posting the video link.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

How Media Bias Works: The Miami Herald Undermines Marco Rubio

Posted by iusbvision on November 23, 2010

How is it that the big networks and many large newspapers always quote “experts” that constantly reinforce false elite media narratives?

The answer is, because that is exactly what most journalists are trained to do in J-school. “What is that Chuck, are you saying that most journalists are taught to manipulate the public instead of making the public as best informed as they can”? That is exactly what I am saying and I know this all too well as I just finished my communications degree from Indiana University. I graduated with honors.

The journalistic philosophy taught in most J-schools is the “Walter Lippmann Objective Method”, but there is nothing objective about it. Lippmann’s method was to have the media use an elite technical class of “experts” to tell the public what they needed to hear in order to vote the “right way”. Anyone who has read Walter Lippmann’s book Public Opinion comes to understand very quickly the contempt he has for popular sovereignty and self auto-determination. Fortunately I had one communications professor who thought that Lippmann’s philosophy was nonsense, I had an English professor who thought so as well. Not every student is so lucky.

The method used to present you these experts is dishonest from the get-go. The journalist has an idea of the storyline or narrative he wishes to present. So he goes through his Rolodex and finds a person that can be portrayed as an expert who will (big time scare quotes here)independently verify and present the point of view the reporter intended to present in the first place.

Often times a reporter will run across a “man on the street” who just happens to totally and convincingly reinforce the narrative you usually see in the elite media. The implication was that the reporter just started talking to people on the street and wow isn’t the media in touch with “regular folks”. The truth is that the “independent regular person found on the street” knows the reporter would be there well in advance. I remember one study I saw a few years ago where the same person was in a dozen random man on the street interviews.

CNN was caught doing just this in a presidential debate where every “random audience person” ended up being a Democrat campaign operative, several of  whom had previously appeared on CNN – LINK.

The media bias in this example is from the Miami Herald. Of course the “Republican” who can always be counted on to trash conservatives in the elite media, David Frum, picked up on this right away as it goes along with his “conservatives are knuckle dragging neanderthals” narrative:

WASHINGTON — When a French TV station set out to understand the American phenomenon known as the tea party, it sent a reporter to Florida, down a dusty country road, past a bug-swarmed pond, and into a Pasco County pasture filled with people waving American flags.

It was Oct. 30, three days before Election Day. The crowd had come to Hallelujah Acres Ranch to hear Republican Senate nominee Marco Rubio, frequently hailed — and claimed — as one of the tea party’s biggest success stories.

But the typically unflappable candidate seemed uncomfortable with the French reporter’s questions about his tea party ties, as he did when an admirer asked him to autograph a tea party banner.

If the tea party is expecting Rubio to plant its yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag in the hallowed Senate chamber, it’s in for a letdown. This career politician who once carried the state party’s American Express card defines himself first and foremost as a Republican.

Rubio’s pollster, Whit Ayers, tactfully put it this way: “I think he’ll carry the banner for hopeful and optimistic conservatism and whoever wants to follow that banner is welcome to join.”

PARTY LOYALTY

Rubio has already made it clear that he will not be a rogue senator. One day after the election, he declared his support for the GOP establishment when he said he looked forward to serving under Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. He didn’t mention Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, viewed as the more ideologically pure conservative and alternative power center, who championed Rubio’s campaign early on.

Two days later, McConnell tapped Rubio to deliver the weekly GOP address.

Rubio, 39, struck a pragmatic tone at the post-election news conference held in Miami, saying Republicans and Democrats have to work together to tackle big, immediate problems like the national debt and the war in Afghanistan. He did not launch salvos at President Barack Obama, as he usually does, and said he would reach out to Florida’s Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.

“Early on in the primary, a conservative group of passionate, well-intentioned people coincided with his beliefs and somehow he got this tea party label, which I don’t think is totally representative,” said Republican fundraiser Jorge Arrizurieta.

“Did he embrace and receive the support of the tea party? Absolutely,” Arrizurieta said. “But will he move away from being a real Republican candidate? No way.”

Tea party leaders still claim Rubio as their own. Among Florida voters, 39 percent said they supported the tea party movement. Rubio got 86 percent of that group.

What you see used here are classic advertising association techniques to try and drive a wedge between Rubio and voters. As you will see the Miami Herald creates this narrative using no real information to imply that Rubio was all talk and he is just another country club Republican that got tossed out of office in 2006.

If the tea party is expecting Rubio to plant its yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag in the hallowed Senate chamber, it’s in for a letdown. This career politician who once carried the state party’s American Express card defines himself first and foremost as a Republican.

While the old “Don’t tread on me” flag from the American Revolution can be seen at some Tea Party events; neither Jim DeMint, Dick Army or Michele Bachmann keep that flag in their office. They fly the American flag just like everyone else.The American Express card crack is another advertising associative technique. We see the commercial on TV and they give the impression that if you have an AMEX card you are “somebody”; well the Marlboro man does the same thing but just from another cultural angle. Heck I am dirt poor and I have had a big corporate AMEX card before. It means nothing. Over half of the country supports the Tea Party movement, are we to think that none of them have an American Express?

Rubio has already made it clear that he will not be a rogue senator. One day after the election, he declared his support for the GOP establishment when he said he looked forward to serving under Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. He didn’t mention Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, viewed as the more ideologically pure conservative and alternative power center, who championed Rubio’s campaign early on.

Again this narrative is pure nonsense. DeMint is not in the official leadership so Rubio saying that he would anticipate serving under DeMint would be unnecessarily divisive. That is not how things are done in Washington and that is not how DeMint and the Tea Party want things done. DeMint and the Tea Party have made an effective Tea Party Caucus that can effectively control the GOP with shear numbers. Do we see Marco Rubio moving to the old 2006 GOP positions that got the party kicked out of power or do we see Senator McConnell changing his positions to conform with DeMint, Rubio, Johnson, Kirk, Coats , Toomey etc. The few who are left in the old GOP leadership are racing to get in line with DeMint and his new freshman Senators.

“Early on in the primary, a conservative group of passionate, well-intentioned people coincided with his beliefs and somehow he got this tea party label, which I don’t think is totally representative,” said Republican fundraiser Jorge Arrizurieta.

Ohh it just happened that some of Rubio’s beliefs coincided with some in the Tea Party…. umm no. Rubio was in peoples face with the same narrative of the Tea Party and made it very clear that the GOP is been given a second chance, but is on probation and had better start governing as they campaign. In fact, Rubio was so eloquent in presenting the Tea Party narrative that the Democrat Party tried to get the Democrat in the race to drop out and support the big government RINO Charlie Crist. Here is a small sample of why the Democrats are scared to death of Marco and why we can expect more dishonest propaganda from the Miami Herald:

Last but not least, the talking head Jorge Arrizurieta. Who is this guy? Well he is a corporate lobbyist and minor fund raiser for the early Bush machine including Jeb Bush in Florida, so you can be sure he is in reporter’s rolodex.   Arrizurieta now supports Mitt Romney who the Tea Party doesn’t trust because of the failure of “RomneyCare” in Massachusetts, and his election year flip flops on abortion and other key issues. It seems that Romney has grown up some since losing the primary against John McCain, but we will see.

So as you can see, the Miami Herald made an emotionally convincing narrative out of nothing but cracks about flags, AMEX cards, not trying to run DeMint for party leader and a crack from a minor lobbyist. They started in just a few days after the election and such the Miami Herald’s push to get Obama re-elected has begun. The best way to combat this nonsense is to get in the media’s face with a little New Jersey style attitude and a little teaching like you have found in this post.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Post 2010, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

MSNBC Talker Calls Sarah Palin an “ASS”…

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2010

…and manages to get the only “factoid” she presented totally wrong. Video via The Blaze.

This is one reason why so few on the left are willing to go on Fox News or enter a setting where they will actually have to debate informed people.

You will notice in the video that random MSNBC talker, who is really no different than most MSNBC talkers, states that when Sarah Palin was asked who her favorite Founder was that she could not name one. This is a lie that many of the far left web sites have embraced such as Media Matters, News Hounds, The Young Turks, Huffintgon Post and the list goes on. They post the video and leave off her answer so it looks like she could not name one. Others just posted a long video of the interview while claiming she was “stumped” and simply counted on people not hanging around to watch her complete answer.

This is the level of dishonesty that the far left engages in regularly as of late. It reminds me of the whopping lies Joe Donnelly said about Jackie Walorski over the recent election. Certainly MSNBC has the video below, yet they seem happy with the lie. Fortunately MSNBC is such a small operation that they are not an electoral threat to anyone.

The video below shows the entire clip and it clearly shows that Sarah Palin answered “George Washington” complete with an explanation as to why.

I am not surprised that Palin would pick Washington, as most people of strong Christian faith do pick him because Washington’s faith was so strong that his men and many of his enemies believed that he could not be harmed in battle (read the history folks as this is mentioned by many at the time).

I watched the interview where Sarah Palin was asked this question live and even though I am much more familiar with the Founders than the vast majority of Americans, I had trouble answering. The thought of trying to decide who was “better” between Patrick Henry, George Washington, Ben Rush, Sam Adams, Noah Webster and the rest actually left me in horror for a few moments. I know full well that the Founders were truly great men with a special blessing, they are men that I am not qualified to judge. At the first moment the idea of ME picking one Founder over another left me feeling unworthy, among these great men who am I to chose who is best? To me it is like declaring who is better Moses or John the Baptist. Indeed it is the hope of enlightened students to be able to approach the wisdom of Founders who even played a lesser role. Sarah Palin was not resistant to answer this question not because she did not know something about them, rather it is precisely because she does, which her answer clearly demonstrates.

Eventually I settled on Sam Adams as a “favorite”. I did so because the way he carried out his passion and the way he spoke was the closest to me so I feel like I identify with him.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Lies | Leave a Comment »

Democrat Sugar Daddy #1 George Soros Explains The Anti-Capitalist, Pro-Marxist Tactics He Uses to Fundamentally Transform Countries

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2010

Via The Blaze

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

New York Times Calls Glenn Beck an Antisemite: Ignores Key facts, Ignores Letter from ADL Declaring Beck “A Friend of the Jewish People”

Posted by iusbvision on November 13, 2010

Why anyone believes a word that appears in the New York Times without triple checking it first is beyond me. Almost every day there are articles in that paper that can be debunked in minutes of fact checking. Example # 1, 374, 924 of this fundemental truth. The New York Times prints this:

Writing on The Daily Beast, the author Michelle Goldberg said Mr. Beck’s Tuesday and Wednesday programs were a “symphony of anti-Semitic dog whistles.”

The NYT also said that the ADL was criticizing Beck for reporting how George Soros admitted that he enjoyed working for the Nazi’s confiscating property of Jews and (as the narrative goes) how it just could not be true…. Oh really….. hey NYT… YouTube is a Behar isn’t it??

In Soros’ own words folks: 

Well guess what the New York Times had in their possession BEFORE they printed the slander against Glenn Beck?

Click to Enlarge

Special thanks to The Blaze for posting the letter.  

 

UPDATEAnother Jewish Group Defends Beck!

The national Jewish group Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has come out strongly against Jewish leaders critical of Glenn Beck’s recent George Soros expose, which detailed his actions during the Holocaust, calling such criticism of Beck “painful, troubling and disquieting.”

“ZOA has expressed its concern over the strong criticism that a number of American Jewish leaders and other prominent Jews in recent days have directed at Fox broadcaster, Glenn Beck, for his criticism of Israel/U.S.-basher, financier George Soros, regarding his behavior in Nazi-occupied Budapest in 1944,” the group says in a statement released Tuesday.

In a three-part series on Beck’s Fox program last week, Beck portrayed Soros as the “puppet master” behind, among other things, world financial collapses. While describing Soros, Beck told how, during the Holocaust, the 14-year-old Hungarian Jew “used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off.” The “anti-Semite” was Soros’s fake grandfather, who was paid off by his real father in an effort to conceal the young Soros’s Jewish identity. He has not shown remorse or regret for those actions.

“A number of American Jewish leaders condemned Mr. Beck for these remarks,” ZOA’s statement says, “yet a 1998 interview with Soros conducted by Steve Kroft on ‘60 Minutes’ shows that Beck did not misstate the facts.”

The group goes on to detail a litany of “anti-Israel, anti-American” remarks made by Soros over the years.*

Among those who have spoken out against Beck are Elan Steinberg, the vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants; Simon Greer, the director of Jewish Funds for Justice; Jewish writer Michelle Goldberg; and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.

“I have seen no proof,” Steinberg has said regarding Beck’s Soros claims, while Greer said Beck “deliberately and grotesquely” mischaracterized Soros’s actions and accused him of “Holocaust revisionism.” Goldberg wrote that Beck’s series went “beyond demonizing” Soros and described the programs as a “symphony of anti-Semitic dog whistles.” And Foxman issued a statement calling Beck’s claims “unacceptable,“ ”offensive,“ and ”horrific.”

Statements like those prompted ZOA to respond.

“It is painful, troubling and disquieting to see Jewish leaders defending any actions by George Soros, someone who has shown himself to be an active antagonist of Israel and the U.S., whom he blames for the world’s troubles,” ZOA National President Morton A. Klein says in the statement.

“In light of Soros’ hatred of Israel and the United States; his continuous efforts to harm them; the absence of any subsequent remorse and feeling as an adult over the events he witnesses in Nazi-occupied Hungary as a 14-year old; as well as the fact that Glenn Beck’s comments were essentially accurate, George Soros merits no defense or sympathy from Jewish leaders,” he adds.

“We are truly puzzled that some Jewish leaders have chosen to defend this and other Israel-bashers from their critics.”

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Israel, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Lies | 9 Comments »

Students with “Organizing for America” caught in vote fraud scam

Posted by iusbvision on November 12, 2010

“Organizing for America” takes you to BarackObama.com and is the White Houses “grass roots” political arm.

The “organizers” flooded the voting place with people who were not registered to vote there while students working with “Organizing for America” would “vouch for them that they lived at the address they said, of course if you voted somewhere else like back home this would be illegal. The Organizing for America students admitted that they vouched for people they did not know to vote, which is of course illegal.

Video link from http://www.minnesotamajority.org/

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Post 2010, Vote Fraud | Leave a Comment »