A conservative newspaper, the Herald was once owned – SURPRISE – by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
I wonder if Fox News Channel will do the right thing and confess to its own "cheerleading" for Brown.
The Fox Nation is currently highlighting a picture of President Obama with his feet up on his Oval Office desk, accompanied by the headline, "Is Pres. Obama disrespecting the Oval Office?"
Of course, one must ask: If Obama is "disrespecting the Oval Office" by putting his feet on the desk, did President Bush too disrespect the office by doing the same? Yes, Fox Nation, Bush also put his feet up on the Oval Office desk:
If this sounds familiar, it should. Close to a year ago, the media fixated on Bush's chief of staff Andy Card's criticism of Obama for allowing men to go jacket-less in the Oval Office, despite the fact that Card's former boss did the same thing. Card, of course, would have been well aware of this, particularly considering there is a photograph of him in the Oval Office with Bush and a (gasp!) jacket-less George Tenet. Nonetheless, the media, at the time, did not bother to fact check Card's claims, and it seems that the editors at The Fox Nation did not learn a lesson from that media fail.
The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut and Michael Fletcher write:
During one of his Afghan review meetings last year, President Obama surprised senior advisers by jumping into a discussion between two military officials about a new study of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The flow of information to the president is usually carefully managed, and no one in the room had briefed Obama on the data. "It's not like we'd sent him the study, but he'd clearly seen it," one adviser said. "It was telling."
What it told of was a president who persists in seeking his own information, beyond what is offered to him. His lawyerly and orderly reliance on facts and data often has created an impression that Obama is cool and detached.
I'm sorry: What?
An anecdote about the President being so interested and involved in the decisions he makes that he seeks out additional information on his own, above and beyond what staff gives him, creates the impression that he is "detached"?
Next the Post will tell us that George W. Bush, by contrast, was an uncommonly engaged president. And the evidence will be that he fell asleep during briefings.
From Pamela Geller's January 25 Newsmax column:
Abe Foxman has come out against a great and wonderful friend of the Jews, Rush Limbaugh.
That is bad enough, but it is symptomatic of a deeper problem: I have for years derided Jews in America and the Jewish lay leadership for tolerating and supporting clear and present enemies of the Jewish people among our senior ranks. It is a sickness of the soul.
The liberal Jew worships at the church of human secularism. These lost souls are married to their liberal dogma.
On Friday Norman Podhoretz, whom I rarely cite, as his capitulation on Gaza and other existential matters of grave concern to the Jewish people have been most damaging, called Foxman out on the ADL chief's denunciation of Rush Limbaugh as an anti-Semite.
He called Foxman's attack on Rush "vile" and noted that Foxman "has a long history of seeing an anti-Semite under every conservative bed while blinding himself to the blatant fact that anti-Semitism has largely been banished from the right in the past 40 years, and that it has found a hospitable new home on the left, especially where Israel is concerned."
He said that rather than Rush apologizing to Foxman, it should be the other way around: "if an apology is owed here, it is the national director of the Anti-Defamation League who should apologize for the defamatory accusation of anti-Semitism that he himself has hurled against so loyal a friend of Israel as Rush Limbaugh."
As a passionate, proud Jew, I too stand with Rush Limbaugh and would take up against Foxman in a heartbeat. Thank God for righteous Gentiles like Rush. He is beyond delicious.
That's not all. Back in August 2007, I demanded Foxman's resignation after his continual denials of the Armenian genocide.
We, as a people, cannot condone such unspeakable silence. We, of all people, must never be silent about the systemic death of a people.
This Islamic genocide was heinous and brutal. And considering the level of Islamic anti-Semitism in the Quran and Sunnah, it would be healthy and good for living Jews (and all decent and good people) to denounce roundly the Islamic genocide of the Armenian people.
But Abe Foxman not only would take that basic fundamental stand, but he went one step further. He fired Andrew Tarsy, the New England regional director, after he broke ranks with national ADL leadership and said the human rights organization should acknowledge the Armenian genocide that began in 1915.
Dr. Andrew Bostom said at the time that Foxman "apparently thinks that [he] can pick and choose among genocides . . . In a telephone interview, James Rudolph, the regional ADL chairman, called Tarsy an extraordinary leader. Indeed, Tarsy was acting in the best ADL tradition of trying to unite people of different ethnic groups, in this case Jews and Armenians, to promote human rights."
If the national ADL doesn't acknowledge the genocide, it is complicit in a cover-up.
Back in 2006, I called Foxman out for his attacks on those dear and precious friends of Israel, the Evangelical Christians. And Caroline Glick said this of Foxman that same year: "Rather than stand with the Catholic church as Benedict moves boldly against radical Islam, American Jewish leaders led by ADL Director Abe Foxman have been attacking the church for its theological decisions."
Foxman also came out in support of the Islamic school in Brooklyn whose principal was forced to resign because of her involvement in anti-Semitic "Intifada NYC" T-shirts (see here).
See the pattern? Foxman demonizes Christian groups that love Israel but is kowtowing to the Islamic jihad.
Which Jews support deleterious characters like Foxman? Which Jews give blood money to these self-hating wretches? Who empowers these terrible Jews?
Uh-oh, the Winter Olympics are set for next month in Vancouver, but the Canadian outpost has no snow because it's been caught in an extended warm spell. But you probably didn't know that from reading the Drudge Report, which relentless hypes headlines about how it sometimes gets cold in January. (Thanks for news flash, Matt.) It's all part of the right-wing's anti-reason crusade, which claims that snows storms and cold spells prove there is no climate change.
But what happens when Canada suffers through a January warm spell? Drudge and the GOP Noise Machine play dumb. So don't look for this recent UK Daily Mail headline on his site:
The lede [emphasis added]:
As spring flowers bloom early and birds start to nest around balmy Vancouver, officials there have chartered a fleet of helicopters to fly in thousands of tons of snow for the Winter Olympics.
Without the emergency snowlift, which is also shipping in tons of snow in convoys of giant lorries, Olympic chiefs feared they might have to abandon the Games that have already cost £1.5 billion and are due to start in three weeks.
Here are some more weather headlines that were ignored by Drudge:
UPDATED: Meanwhile, weather forecasters predict New York City today will flirt with setting an all-time record high temperature for January 25.
Somebody alert Steve Doocy.
In an article discussing Republican opposition to Democrats' health care reform, The Washington Post portrayed Sen. Chuck Grassley as one of the "few GOP senators who sought consensus on health care," conjuring up images of Grassley walking hand-in-hand with the Democrats to pass health care reform (unlike, say, Sen. Jon Kyl, who in September 2009 reportedly called reform a "stunning assault on liberty").
To buttress this image, the Post ignored the not-so-small fact that Grassley helped forward the 2009 "Lie of the Year," the widely debunked falsehood that health reform legislation would establish "death panels." At a town hall meeting in August 2009, Grassley said that Americans "have every right to fear" the end-of-life counseling provision in the House bill. He went on to say, "You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. We should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma."
In addition to sidestepping Grassley's embrace of the death panel falsehood, the Post also reported that Grassley "worked for months on a bipartisan bill," but that he sees President Obama as "not committed to meaningful compromise." To make this narrative of Grassley the cooperator work, the Post failed to note that during an August 2009 interview on MSNBC's Morning Meeting, Grassley admitted he wouldn't vote for a bill if the GOP remained opposed -- even if Grassley got what he wanted during negotiations.
Moreover, before blithely repeating Grassley's claim that Obama is "not committed to meaningful compromise," the Post might have pointed out that the final Senate bill included "161 Republican amendments" from senators such as Mike Enzi, Tom Coburn, Pat Roberts, and others, and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009, as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009. And according to a Senate Finance Committee document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in that bill.
It turns out that in his new role as a Sunday Post columnist, Milbank thinks a top priority is defending his employer. And so this week Milbank dedicates his entire column to push back against a recent, critical feature article in The New Republic that highlighted the newspaper's recent woes. (i.e. Shrinking newsroom and some monumental editorial blunders.) Milbank though, insists the Post is doing just fine:
This paper's management has no sure-fire strategy for success -- and neither does any other news organization. But it does have the deep pockets and determination to tough it out while this news outlet and others experiment with new business models for online news.
Dedicating an entire Post column to rebut a single magazine article is a rather odd. Indeed, when the Post recently tapped Milbank to be a high-profile Sunday columnist, the spin was that he'd do more "big picture analysis." Suddenly hyping the Post's unique viewer count qualifies as big picture?
Also curious is that a bulk of TNR's story actually detailed the decline the Post's editorial product and its aimless newsroom leadership. But on those points Milbank remains silent.
From BigGovernment.com accessed January 24, 2010:
I would like to officially challenge the folks at Media Matters, and other progressive intellectual sink-holes, to address their movement's role in the Nazi genocide.
The Neo-Progressives might do themselves a service by admitting the damage their predecessors have done, and trying to make amends for their horrors. Denying these documented crimes is the same as excusing them.
I would also like to challenge American Jews and Blacks, the main targets of Progressive Eugenics, by asking how they can call themselves Progressives given what the movement has unapologetically done to their populations.
Progressive intellectuals inspired and fed the ideology of Nazis and the Klan.
Is a Jewish Progressive any different than a Jewish Nazi? If so, how?
Is a black Progressive any different than a black Klansman? If so, how?
If those questions strike you as painful, they should. This topic demands some tough questions.
By no means am I concluding that Progressive Jews and Blacks are Nazis or Klansmen. Of course they are not. I am absolutely suggesting they have not a clue about the movement they have signed onto. How could they be aware of what Progressivism unapologetically did, and still join it?
These are serious questions which I wish any progressive would attempt to address.
From Pamela Geller's January 22 BigJournalism.com post:
Abe Foxman has come out against a great and wonderful friend of the Jews, Rush Limbaugh. That is bad enough, but it is symptomatic of a deeper problem: I have for years derided Jews in America and the Jewish lay leadership for tolerating and supporting clear and present enemies of the Jewish people among our senior ranks. It is a sickness of the soul. The liberal Jew worships at the church of human secularism. These lost souls are married to their liberal dogma.
One of the most odious of the bunch, Abe Foxman, uses the might and the soapbox of the Anti-Defamation League in an attempt to destroy friends and supporters of the Jewish people, in order to garner favor with our enemies.
As a passionate, proud Jew, I too stand with Rush Limbaugh and would take up against Foxman in a heartbeat. Thank G-d for righteous Gentiles like Rush. He is beyond delicious. He has such a yiddische heart, I'd marry him under a chupa!
Abe Foxman, on the other hand, is a plague on our people. Foxman has come out repeatedly against one of the greatest friends of the Jews and Israel, my friend the Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Foxman strongly condemned remarks Wilders made at a conference at which I also spoke (see here). At that conference, Wilders called Israel a "wonderful country," and affirmed: "I love it, I do love Israel."
We should be fiercely defending our right to fight for our survival. We need proud, unapologetic, vigorous Jews to lead our people now.
Mr. Foxman, please step aside. Please step aside now, for the sake of the Jews.
Watching Glenn Beck's documentary "Revolutionary Holocaust" really brought home just how shrewd and crass a propagandist Beck is.
The project, billed as an "exposé" of the "unseen history of Marxism, progressivism, and communism," was little more than an hour-long, overly dramatized denunciation of the already well-known, thoroughly examined, and exhaustively studied atrocities committed by the leading communist statesmen of the 20th century. It broke absolutely no new ground, except perhaps in its ridiculous assertion that "history has erased" the genocidal policies of Josef Stalin.
But that was never the point. Beck never intended to "expose" anything or teach anything new. The purpose of Beck's documentary was to link modern progressivism to the abhorrent violence the world saw under communism in the 20th century. Beck's intention is to undercut the current administration and very idea of progressivism -- or at least what he claims is progressivism -- by associating them with the strong emotional rejection people have to the Holocaust and Soviet pogroms, making them radioactive, something to be feared and abhorred. And he's doing it all under the guise of "education."
Take a look at how Beck closed out "Revolutionary Holocaust":
BECK: With 100 million killed, communism exists in a very exclusive club alongside with the planet's worst communicable diseases like smallpox and the bubonic plague. But it's not just communism. It is the truth of any government with too much power. Some government is necessary, too much is suicidal. Every all-powerful government has elements of what Marx called the "revolutionary holocaust," the relentless pursuit of nirvana and the price it's worth paying to get there in human life. It is only [in] understanding history that we can stop this from happening again, and again, and again.
Look at Beck's warning against governments "with too much power" turning to violence and hold it up against the things he's been saying in the past month about the progressive push for health care reform:
BECK: The way you boil this down -- I'm fascinated if I can connect with you here a little bit on. I haven't seen anything in American history like what is being played out right now unless I go back to the early 20th century with Woodrow Wilson and the early progressive movement with Teddy Roosevelt, prohibition, the Fed, income tax and the power grab that happened around 1915. [Glenn Beck, 1/18/10]
BECK: The progressives like FDR, Sunstein, Harkin desperately want you to be dependent on them and not dependent on yourself and God. Well, that's just a secondary thought. If God doesn't exist, if God is somehow another cut-out-of-the-rights process, you get all of your rights from government.
That is in essence what our founders fought against, government bestowing rights. It gives them power. Because what the government giveth, the government can taketh away. And if you disobey, guess who loses their rights? If you eat too many chips, you fatty fat fatso, guess who loses their right to health care? [Glenn Beck, 1/7/10]
Now combine all that with Beck's months-long campaign to link progressives to violence, and the picture becomes clear.
It's insidious in its nature and vile in its character -- he's using the slaughter of tens of millions as a tool to discredit those he disagrees with, and he's spewing this bile while wearing the good-natured face of an educator.