NYT Leaves Out Democratic Ties Behind Planned Parenthood's Publicity Stunt

 York Times reporter Jackie Calmes has been playing aggressive defense for Planned Parenthood ever since damning undercover videos were released showing staffers using dehumanizing terms to describe aborted babies, and engaging in possibly illegal activity. On Thursday she took dictation from the abortion provider about its supposed exoneration. In a public relations move that may be designed to neutralize the final undercover videos to be released by David Daleiden's Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood commissioned its own report accusing the CMP of selective editing. Calmes treated the stunt as news. But she left out vital information from Planned Parenthood's supposed exoneration -- that it came courtesy of a firm that engaged in pro-Obama opposition research against conservatives. 

Planned Parenthood on Thursday gave congressional leaders and a committee that is investigating allegations of criminality at its clinics an analysis it commissioned concluding that “manipulation” of undercover videos by abortion opponents make those recordings unreliable for any official inquiry.

“A thorough review of these videos in consultation with qualified experts found that they do not present a complete or accurate record of the events they purport to depict,” the analysis of a private research company said.

....

The analysis was by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research and corporate intelligence company, and its co-founder Glenn Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

....

According to the investigation, the reviewers could not determine “the extent to which C.M.P.’s undisclosed edits and cuts distort the meaning of the encounters the videos purport to document.”

But, it said, “the manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries” unless C.M.P. provides investigators with its original material, and that material is independently authenticated as unaltered.

....

The analysis also supported Planned Parenthood’s objection to two allegations that have elicited some of the most outrage from anti-abortion forces, disputing that Planned Parenthood staffers at one point say of fetal remains, “It’s a baby,” and in a second instance, “Another boy.”

But Mark Hemingway at The Weekly Standard focused on what Calmes skipped over: "Politico & NYT Fail to Mention Report Exonerating Planned Parenthood Produced By Democratic Opposition Research Firm."

Hemingway asked: "Just who, exactly, is behind Fusion GPS? Turns out it's an opposition research firm with ties to the Democratic party and has a history of harassing socially conservative Republican donors, possibly on behalf of the Obama campaign."

He quoted a Wall Street Journal editorial:

As [Kim] Strassel has reported in recent columns, Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot has become the target of a smear campaign since it was disclosed earlier this year that he had donated $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mr. Romney. President Obama's campaign website teed him up in April as one of eight "less than reputable" Romney donors and a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement." One sin: His wife donated to an anti-gay-marriage campaign, of the kind that have passed in 30 or so states.

Now we learn that little more than a week after that Presidential posting, a former Democratic Senate staffer called the courthouse in Mr. VanderSloot's home town of Idaho Falls seeking his divorce records. Ms. Strassel traced the operative, Michael Wolf, to a Washington, D.C. outfit called Fusion GPS that says it is "a commercial research firm."

Fusion GPS is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson, who wouldn't say who is paying him for this high-minded slumming but said in an email that Mr. VanderSloot was a "legitimate" target because of "his record on gay issues."

Politico was slightly more balanced than the Times.

A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue. ...

But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

Joy Reid Laments Voters Rejected ‘Carter’s Decency and Goodness’ for ‘Bluster’ of ‘Cowboy’ Reagan -

During a segment on Thursday’s The Last Word about Jimmy Carter’s cancer diagnosis, MSNBC national correspondent Joy Reid complained that voters rejected “Carter’s decency and goodness” in the 1980 presidential election in favor of the “bluster” possessed by “cowboy” Ronald Reagan.  

Reid’s pronouncement was prompted by comments from host Lawrence O’Donnell about how Americans have “bought into [a] Trumpian concept of winners and losers” where you’re “utterly worthless as soon as you lose an election in this country” with Carter having “certainly suffered that imagery since losing the presidential election.” 

Nodding in agreement, Reid declared that: 

I think it says profoundly about who we are as a people that Carter's decency and goodness was taken for weakness and had to be remedied with the sort of bluster of a Ronald Reagan and that the idea we needed a cowboy to replace what people viewed as a man who wasn't cowboy enough to be president, that he was too nice.

Reid added a brief anecdote about how her mother had said that perhaps Carter “was too good of a man to be the President of the United States and he was just too nice” which she then used to scold the U.S. electorate for not seeing what Democrats saw in Carter: “I think it’s a bit sad that we, as a country, take a cerebral, gentle, a kind man for a weak man because that's not necessarily the case.”

Earlier in the segment, contrasting clips of Donald Trump and Carter (from his 1977 inaugural address) were played that allowed O’Donnell to tie together the now cancer-stricken Carter and Trump: “It took 38 years to go from Jimmy Carter's inaugural address, marked by humility and decency, to a front runner for a presidential nomination who has no humility and virtually no decency.”

Those remarks teed up former Carter speechwriter and journalist Walter Shapiro to bash Trump as “promising the American people a government as good as the worst elements and a shallow as the worst with elements of the American people” compared to Carter since he “promised the American people a government as good as its people.”

The relevant portions of the transcript from MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell on August 20 can be found below.

MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell

August 20, 2015

10:32 p.m. Eastern

THEN-PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER [on 01/20/77]: Your strength can compensate for my weakness and your wisdom can help to minimize my mistakes. 

DONALD TRUMP: I went to the Wharton School of Finance. You know, like really smart people go to the Wharton School of Finance, I will tell you.

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: It took 38 years to go from Jimmy Carter's inaugural address, marked by humility and decency, to a front runner for a presidential nomination who has no humility and virtually no decency. Watching Jimmy Carter's press conference today in which the former President dignified and humane as ever described his planned cancer treatment, journalist Walter Shapiro tweeted: “This is a moment to contrast the moment the grace of Jimmy Carter with the grotesque egotism of real estate developer to who thinks he is up for the job.” Joining us now is Walter Shapiro, fellow at the Brennan Center of Justice and a former speech writer for President Carter. Walter, please expand on that point. You have the floor. 

WALTER SHAPIRO: Well, first of all, Jimmy Carter when he ran in '76 promised the American people a government as good as its people. The way Donald Trump is running, he is promising the American people a government as good as the worst elements and a shallow as the worst with elements of the American people. I mean, the thing that gets me – forget his positions on immigration. The thing that got me is with Chuck Todd on Sunday when Trump was asked who are your military advisers and what he said is, oh, I just watch the Sunday shows. That's all I need. That, more than anything, is such a profound disrespect for the office and the whole Trump circus is more than anything scarily – he either sees the White House as a branding opportunity or he is totally oblivious to a job that Harry Truman decided as the sun, the moon and the stars all falling on you and I can't figure out which is worse. 

(....)

NATIONAL URBAN RADIO NETWORK’s APRIL RYAN: I mean, here you had someone who served in the military – there's no similarity at all. They are total opposites. You have Donald Trump, a man who's talking very negatively and I'm saying it in the best terms I can, about a war hero, John McCain and someone who served and believed in peace. He received a Nobel Peace Prize because he was trying to work out peace throughout the world, but tne thing also, that is blaring for me with Trump versus Jimmy Carter, you had Jimmy Carter who was someone who came from the south, Georgia, with steep still and racial problems in the '70s and he took the high road and he tried to stay away from that. He tried to build on integration, not segregation and here you have Donald Trump, talking about minorities the way he does. Particularly Mexicans, but one thing that really is blaring to me. What happened in Boston and how this homeless person was beaten up, urinated on and they are blaming it on Donald Trump. I will tell you this, Amos Brown, Dr. Amos Brown a board member of the national board of the NAACP said, you know, rhetoric like this is what started the situation in Charleston where that man went in and shot up nine people, shot them dead that that church. So, we have to be careful and you have Jimmy Carter who's a man of peace and this man who's not lily correct. We need some help in this time right now. 

(....)

O’DONNELL: Joy, the Carter presidency is – in America, we are I think bought in to Trumpian concept of winners and losers and you are utterly worthless as soon as you lose an election in this country. Jimmy Carter has certainly suffered that imagery since losing the presidential election. 

JOY REID: Absolutely and I think it says profoundly about who we are as a people that Carter's decency and goodness was taken for weakness and had to be remedied with the sort of bluster of a Ronald Reagan and that the idea we needed a cowboy to replace what people viewed as a man who wasn't cowboy enough to be president, that he was too nice. I remember growing up one thing my mother said to me is maybe he was too good of a man to be the President of the United States and he was just too nice and I think it’s a bit sad that we, as a country, take a cerebral, gentle, a kind man for a weak man because that's not necessarily the case. 

O’DONNELL: Walter, How did it feel inside the administration as you were approaching that re-election. 

SHAPIRO: Well, I didn’t get all the way through the reelection because I did the smartest thing in the entire world. I believe the Gallup polls and I got out in '79 and went to a place called The Washington Post, but the truth is, I have been thinking a lot about the Carter years as – and part of it is the things he doesn't get credit for. Number one, bringing human rights into the entire vocabulary of foreign policy. Number two, basically being pressing it beyond belief about energy. You could read Carter energy speeches, including the misnamed malaise speech from '79 and it reads like a Thomas Friedman column today and thirdly of all, 36 years we have had enduring peace in the Middle East and Israel's continued existence is the bedrock there as it’s negotiated by Jimmy Carter, peace with Egypt.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

Lerner Rages Against 'Evil and Dishonest' Republicans, Will Nets Report?

Lois Lerner’s utter contempt for Republicans was on full display in a newly uncovered email in which she railed: “They called me back to testify on the IRS ‘scandal,’ and I too[k] the 5th again because they had been so evil and dishonest in my lawyer’s dealings with them.”

The question has to be asked, will Lerner’s use of such inflammatory language be enough to wake the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows out of their IRS scandal coverage slumber? 

So far, they have yet to report on any of the recent IRS scandal revelations such as Lerner setting her sights on Bristol Palin, her glee when she found out instant messaging emails were not automatically archived, and the IRS’s targeting of donors to conservative organizations.

On Thursday, Politico’s Katy O’Donnell, in article headlined “Lerner Slammed ‘evil and dishonest’ GOP Inquisitors,” reported on a “Politico examination of thousands of pages of emails and other material recently released by the Senate Finance Committee” that uncovered  particularly spiteful emails Lerner had sent to a friend:

When she was under investigation by Congress, she offered a blistering critique of her inquisitors. In a March 6, 2014, email, Lerner told a friend: “They called me back to testify on the IRS ‘scandal,’ and I too[k] the 5th again because they had been so evil and dishonest in my lawyer’s dealings with them.”

In June 2014, Lerner told the same friend that an unflattering picture of her appearing before Congress kept surfacing because “it serves their purposes of hate mongering to continue to use those images. I was never a political person — this whole fiasco has only made me lose all respect [for] politics and politicians. I am merely a pawn in their game to take over the Senate.”

These emails come on the heels of new evidence that Lerner’s IRS was holding up approval of conservative groups. 

On August 11, Americans for Tax Reform’s Alexander Hendrie reported that Lerner’s IRS granted only one conservative group non-profit status in three years:

Lois Lerner’s political beliefs led to tea party and conservative groups receiving disparate and unfair treatment when applying for non-profit status, according to a detailed report compiled by the Senate Finance Committee.

Because of Lerner’s bias, only one conservative political advocacy organization was granted tax exempt status over a period of more than three years:

“Due to the circuitous process implemented by Lerner, only one conservative political advocacy organization was granted tax-exempt status between February 2009 and May 2012. Lerner’s bias against these applicants unquestionably led to these delays, and is particularly evident when compared to the IRS’s treatment of other applications, discussed immediately below.”

As the report notes, Lois Lerner became aware in April or May of 2010 that the IRS Exempt Organizations (EO) division had begun receiving a high number of applications from Tea Party organizations. But as the backlog of applicants increased, Lerner added “more layers of review and raised hurdles for applicants to clear.”

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

Sharpton *Shocked* At Suggestion That People Who Work Harder Earn More

And I am shocked that he has a TV show. CLICK for VIDEO

I will be even more shocked if I hear that anyone actually watches.

Via NewsBusters:

In the liberal universe, there's no correlation between hard work or ingenuity and financial success.  As President Obama recently put it, the rich are simply "society's lottery winners."

Sounding a similar theme, Al Sharpton today declared it "astounding" that Rand Paul believes that income inequality is due to "some people working harder."  Astounding, indeed!  What's wrong with Rand?  How could he possibly believe that someone someone who works, say, 60 hours per week might earn more than someone else who works 20?

Note that Sharpton also recycled the canard that Jeb Bush said people needed to work longer hours whereas the context made clear he was calling for the availability of  more full-time jobs. 

AL SHARPTON: It's the new 2016 Republican answer to income inequality and it's a doozy. Here is GOP senator Rand Paul saying Americans must, they just need to work harder. 

CHRIS WALLACE: Question, doesn't your plan massively increase income inequality? 

RAND PAUL: Well the thing is, income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things. So if voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you'll have more money.

SHARPTON: He said that, that's right, he's claiming income inequality is due to some people working harder? Astounding! Implying that the poor just don't work hard enough. It's also strikingly similar to Jeb Bush last month when he said Americans need to work longer hours.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

CNN's Tapper Shames Earnest For Not Watching Undercover Abortion Videos

CNN's Jake Tapper went after Josh Earnest on Monday's The Lead, after the White House press secretary admitted that he hadn't seen any of the undercover Planned Parenthood videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, and was "relying on news reports that I've seen" about the controversy. Tapper pointed out that "the whole video is put up on the website of this anti-abortion group that put them out." When Earnest blasted the pro-life group for their "ideological games," the anchor retorted that "somebody at the White House should maybe watch the videos in full."

Tapper raised the issue in the middle of his interview of Earnest. He also ran clips from the first four videos that the Center for Medical Progress released. The journalist first noted that "the Senate...is going ahead with a vote to try and defund Planned Parenthood. The White House has threatened to veto any measure like that." He then asked the press secretary, "Is it your contention that there's nothing in these secretly-recorded videotapes of Planned Parenthood officials discussing what sounds like profiting from fetal tissue and organ sales – there's nothing in these tapes that bothers you and anyone in the White House?" -

Earnest replied that "these videos...were released because of their shock value, and there's no doubt that's what depicted on these videos is shocking. I know that based on the news reports that I've read about the videos – I haven't actually looked at them." He continued with one of Planned Parenthood's talking points – that "people...have raised significant questions about whether or not these videos are credible – about whether or not they've been selectively edited in a way to grossly distort the position and the policies of Planned Parenthood." 

The CNN anchor followed with his point about the whole videos being available on the pro-life organization's website. The White House official responded with more liberal talking points about the administration wanting to "make sure that there is not an ideological effort to wholesale defund Planned Parenthood that provides those important health care services to women all across the country.

" The transcript of the relevant portion of Jake Tapper's interview of Josh Earnest from Monday's The Lead on CNN:

JAKE TAPPER: Josh, I want to ask you about a couple other issues, as long as I have – the Senate, as you know, is going ahead with a vote to try and defund Planned Parenthood. The White House has threatened to veto any measure like that-

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That's right-

TAPPER: Is it your contention that there's nothing in these secretly-recorded videotapes of Planned Parenthood officials discussing what sounds like profiting from fetal tissue and organ sales – there's nothing in these tapes that bothers you and anyone in the White House?

EARNEST: Well, Jake, I got to tell you – you know, these videos are – were released because of their shock value, and there's no doubt that's what depicted on these videos is shocking. I know that based on the news reports that I've read about the videos – I haven't actually looked at them. But people who have looked at them have raised significant questions about whether or not these videos are credible – about whether or not they've been selectively edited in a way to grossly distort the position and the policies of Planned Parenthood. And if you consider the source-

TAPPER: The whole – the video – the whole video is put up on – on the website of this anti-abortion group that – that put them out. I mean, you can – you don't have to watch just the edited version. You can watch the whole version.

EARNEST: Yeah. Well, listen, I'm relying on – on news reports that I've seen of people who have taken a look at this and raised questions about the videos themselves. And there's no doubt that this is an organization that has targeted Planned Parenthood for some time. So, they clearly have an ideological axe to grind.

What we know to be true is that Planned Parenthood provides regular health care for millions of Americans across the country, and Planned Parenthood is not able to use federal funds to perform abortions. That is written into the rules. That is a rule that this administration has not just followed, but actually supported.

So it's clear that there are some ideological games that are being played here, and what this administration and this president has long fought for is protecting access for women to health care. And that's exactly why we want to make sure that there is not an ideological effort to wholesale defund Planned Parenthood that provides those important health care services to women all across the country.

TAPPER: Well, somebody at the White House should maybe watch the videos in full.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

NPR Anchor Can't Say the Words 'Selling Fetal Tissue'

The Planned Parenthood scandal surprisingly came up in the Friday “Week in Politics” segment on NPR’s All Things Considered. (We can't say the same for the PBS NewsHour.) Both the liberal and the pseudo-conservative spoke up a bit for the humanity of the unborn. But anchor Audie Cornish developed a bad case of the euphemisms.

 “I want to turn to another issue that's been very much in the news the last few weeks,” she began. “That's Planned Parenthood. The group is in crisis mode after a video sting operation by a group opposed to abortion has put Planned Parenthood in the spotlight for the practice of fetal tissue in medical research.” What does that mean, “the practice of fetal tissue”? Shouldn’t it have been “the practice of selling fetal tissue for medical research”?  NPR was never this nervous when it described Abu Ghraib photos or the American treatment of terrorists at Guantanamo. But with abortion clinic practices, it speaks in tortured phrasing. It has a bad case of "Planned Parenthood patriotism." 

She added “Now, elsewhere in the program, we're going to hear more details about the fetal tissue research industry.” But that one-sided Jennifer Ludden story underlined the claims that no one anywhere is making a profit, and no pro-lifers were interviewed to say “So why were they joking about Lamborghinis?” - 

Here’s how liberal columnist E.J. Dionne and pseudo-conservative columnist David Brooks at least expressed some horror at the videos:

DIONNE: Well, the response that that they haven't broken laws is very important. But the fact is, if you look at that video, I think whether you are for or against abortion, it was deeply disturbing to have what looks like a casual discussion of fetal parts over lunch is just going to bother a lot of people, and understandably so.

The irony is that if Planned Parenthood were put out of business -- and a pro-life congressman made this point some years back [?] -- you might well have more abortions because Planned Parenthood dedicates a lot of its work, much more of its work to contraceptive and to preventing unintended pregnancies. So this is -- I wish we could come to a time where we had a less inflamed and more sober discussion of abortion because it's an issue, I think, at least, where it shouldn't be hard to understand why there's such passion on both sides.

CORNISH: E.J., David, I want to give you a chance to answer this. I don't know if you've seen the videos, but what does this moment say to you about this discussion?

BROOKS: Oh, I've seen the videos, and I guess, to me, they are a sign of a sort of a gradual moral degradation that occurred. Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, to talk in this way, suggests to me just a hardening of the heart that happens when you, I guess, deal with this on a daily basis and are not - don't remain morally sensitive to the issues involved. One of the oddities now is we may have a government shutdown over this as Republicans seek to defund federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and Democrats fight to preserve it. This unexpected showdown may actually lead to a real budget crisis because of these videos.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

GUTIERREZ: STEINLE DEATH ‘A LITTLE THING’

Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) explained on Telemundo that the murder of Kate Steinle was just “a little thing” and every time an extreme example like this occurs, it’s used to eliminate. He is referring to sanctuary cities.

Under Barack Obama’s guidelines, deportations of criminal illegal aliens are down by more than 42%. At least 30,000 criminal illegal aliens are released each year since Barack Obama has been in office, but 2013 was a banner year with with more than 68,000 criminal illegal aliens let out onto our streets.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte released the data which also showed that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE knowingly released back into the community in 2014 had amassed nearly 80,000 convictions, including 250 homicides, 186 kidnappings and 373 sexual assaults.

Also according to the statistics, the aliens released by ICE had amassed 13,636 convictions for driving under the influence, 1,589 weapons offenses, 99 aggravated assaults, 56 arsons and 31 smuggling offenses.

Their criminal convictions in their home country are never considered.

In May of this year, the Obama administration’s Police Task Force had a new “recommendation” that law enforcement better follow. Local police are no longer to report illegal alien felons to any agency that could deport them.

Local, State and County law enforcement will no longer have any jurisdiction over this class of criminal when it comes to deportation – Homeland Security will have sole responsibility.

In 2014, ICE reported that there are more than 870,000 aliens, including criminals, on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law.

When the criminal illegal aliens are released onto our streets, they are spread out in a number of zip codes. You can check those on this link.

Let’s go through a few more of the “little things”.

Haitian immigrant Jean Jacques, who was released from prison in January after serving a sentence for attempted murder, is accused of murdering a 25-year old Connecticut woman, Casey Chadwick, on June 15th and stuffing her body in a closet.

His prison file was marked “Detainer: Immigration”. Connecticut officials say he was released in January to the custody of the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

His crimes included the illegal use of a gun during a 1996 deadly shooting. ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer said he can’t talk about it.

An Illegal alien from Chiapas, Mexico, Aurelio Hernandez-Gomex, 23, pictured above, kidnapped a 13-year-old girl from Polk County, Florida last week and brought her to a house in Michigan, according to police.

He is charged with kidnapping and rape, according to The Ledger.

Sue Payne hosted the Pat McDonough Show in Baltimore on July 11th. She spoke first to former representative Tom Tancredo and he mentioned one case in Colorado that was particularly upsetting to him.

Via: Independent Sentinel

Continue Reading....

Bozell & Graham Column: Unasked Questions in the LGBT Wars

For decades now, the liberal “news” media have demonstrated a dramatic tilt toward the gay agenda, beginning with their notion that there is no such thing as a “gay agenda.” But now as the Supreme Court mandated gay “marriage” on all 50 states the liberal world is celebrating the agenda it has been pushing for decades. 

Television coverage has been the usual appalling agitprop, but in this case it was also a victory lap. News segments have been either unanimous in their "analysis" or, if "balance" is presented, stacked by about five to one. Simply put, a debate is not allowed, just as it is not allowed on global warming, gun rights, abortion and a host of other liberal imperatives. So much for free speech.

 Former Good Morning America weather man Sam Champion is a gay activist on air and off, and he recently told CNN that this liberal bias is terrific. “I think TV always eases the path for change. I think what people watch in their homes, what they're comfortable with in their homes leads the way for acceptance in this country.” 

Champion and his champions are never, ever asked serious questions challenging their views. What kinds of questions are appropriate? 

Enter Kevin DeYoung. Mr. DeYoung has taken to the Gospel Coalition website to pose over forty questions to Christians who consider themselves supporters of gay "marriage." These are precisely the kinds of questions a disinterested press would ask if it were disinterested. 

Gays have suggested – and now  aggressively insist – that it’s not “Christian” to oppose the gay agenda. The secular media know nothing about Christianity, or if they do, they don’t really care to discuss it.  Imagine them dropping these questions to a gay-Left advocate:

 “How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?” 

Or: “Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship? If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?” 

Then there’s the fidelity question: 

“Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?” Gay rabble-rouser Dan Savage insists monogamy is for suckers. Why is he wrong?  

 DeYoung poses questions about the politics of this issue. Wouldn't it be fascinating if one, just one reporter would ask: 

“Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?”

 Or: “Do you think children do best with a mother and a father? If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?” 

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Shock: NBC Actually Goes to U.S.-Mexico Border to Find Ranchers Who Agree with Trump

Amid the ongoing media coverage surrounding Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on illegal immigration, Thursday’s NBC Nightly News surprisingly went down to the U.S.-Mexico border to further understand on the situation. 

 Following a news brief that mentioned a protest at the site of a Trump hotel being built in Washington D.C., anchor Lester Holt explained that even though some are “angered” by Trump’s remarks, they “are striking a cord” “for others” as they “believe he’s calling attention to a vital threat along our border.” 

With surveillance footage of illegal immigrants crossing the border into Arizona being played, correspondent Mark Potter explained how “[f]or several years, hidden cameras in the Arizona desert have captured scenes like these, of drug and immigrant smugglers, sometimes armed, hiking through miles of American ranchland after illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexican border.

” Potter brought Trump into the equation by revealing that the footage just shown “was shot in May, south of Tucson, just two months before Donald Trump complained about boarder security.”  

Concerning ranchers that are confronted with the problem, Potter introduced “John Ladd, whom we visited several times before along the Mexican boarder fence” as he “and others have long complained...about what they say is an insecure boarder that leaves them facing security threats on their own land.”

 Ahead of Trump’s weekend visit to Arizona, Potter noted that, for ranchers like Ladd, “[t]hey applaud Trump for giving their concerns a national voice.” 

Potter then found two soundbites of business owners in Arizona (with one owning a restaurant near the border) who were against Trump’s comments, but their airtime was far less than what was given to both Ladd and fellow rancher Fred Davis.  Later, the NBC correspondent concluded by noting the GOP candidate has “plans to travel to Arizona this weekend, where he's already drawn lots of attention.” - 

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

AP's Rugaber Changed Jobs Report Assessment Again on Thursday, From 'Mixed' to 'Bleaker Picture'

The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber had a very bad day on Thursday as he covered the government's June jobs report, but it was all self-inflicted.

 I noted much of the problem in a NewsBusters post yesterday, citing how the AP economics writer got badly burned while engaging in the wire service's usual practice of analyzing expected and reported economic results instead of concentrating on relaying the facts. But there's more.

 Ahead of the government's report, Rugaber claimed that it would that it would "likely" show that the job market "is nearing full health."

He stuck to his guns in the first paragraph of the story he filed shortly after the report was released, claiming that the job market is "moving close to full health," despite acknowledging clear weaknesses in two paragraphs which followed. The first paragraph's unsupportable take on things appeared to designed to ensure that "good news" reports would emanate from online outlets, email alerts and AP-subscribing broadcasters across the nation. 

A mere half-hour after his initial post-release report, Rugaber began to reverse field. Now the very same government report which showed that the job market was "moving close to full health" at 8:39 a.m. was "paint(ing) a mixed picture" at 9:12 a.m.

 Thanks to the AP's annoying (and keister-covering) practice of sending older reports down the memory hole once they've been updated or revised, I didn't know until this morning when I stumbled across it at a non-AP site that Rugaber downgraded his evaluation of the results and their potential impact again late Thursday afternoon.

Via MRC Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

Follow-up: Tweeters Indicate Thanksgiving Obamacare Conversations Didn't Help the President's Cause

In the runup to Thanksgiving, Organizing For Action, the group whose sole mission is to promote President Barack Obama's agenda, with the "help" of an absolutely horrid video, encouraged its members to "have the talk with your loved ones" about signing up for Obamacare.

Just before Thanksgiving, as P.J. Gladnick at NewsBusters noted on Thursday, two Huffington Post writers suggested that changing the subject away from Obamacare might be the better move. Even Andrew Rosenthal at the Obama-loving New York Times was concerned: "I question the wisdom of directing people to a cheery ad for the exchanges before they, you know, work. The president’s communications team is just asking for it." Based on tweets collected by the intrepid Twitter monitors at Twitchy.com, they got it (some individual tweets were given minor edits; bolds are mine):

Thanks, Obama! Here’s what happened when Obamacare came up at Thanksgiving dinners

... For some families, Obamacare at the holiday table was a recipe for disaster. New Thanksgiving tradition: Screaming arguments.

Thanks, Obama (six tweets on this list and the one which follows were selected from longer compilations — Ed.):

- "My family is drunk and screaming at each other about Obamacare."
- "Family fighting over Obamacare. lol here we go."
- "Yay! Inevitable Obamacare extended family argument time!"
- "Arguing about Obamacare and social media at the dinner table…. I'm so done wow can I sleep now?"
- "Oh no. Someone brought up health insurance and obamacare and now theres lots of yelling."
- "Everybody's drunk and yelling at eachother about obamacare and its not even 5 yet."

But Obamacare chatter at the dinner table didn’t just lead to misery. For some, there was family unity … but not in the way Dems intended:

- "We held a family vote on Obama Care and we were unanimous in being "agin" it. First time we've all agreed on anything."
- "Followed obama's advice to discuss #obamacare during turkey dinner. Family consensus was obama is worst Pres in US history."
- "Well we sat down as a family and all talked about the failure of #obamacare today at dinner. Thats what we were supposed to do, right?"
- "We discussed #Obamacare at Thanksgiving dinner. We all still agree that it sucks."
- "The only remotely liberal family member at Thanksgiving dinner today didn't say a word in defense of Obamacare. Sorry, @OFA."
- "Here was our conversation about O'care at dinner; Obamacare sucks, now please pass the mashed potatoes" - "#Obamacare talk w family went better then expected. They all agreed ACA should be repealed!!"
- "We discussed obamacare over dinner as we were instructed. First time this family has been in total agreement about anything. Obamacare SUCKS"

I wonder if Rosenthal of the Huffington Post writers plan any kind of follow-up on the "Health Care for the Holidays" initiative? (/sarcasm)

Via: Newsbusters.org

Continue Reading....

Obama Twice Uses MSNBC Slogan ‘Lean Forward’ While Addressing Disaster Relief

President Obama on Tuesday twice used MSNBC’s slogan “lean forward” while addressing Red Cross headquarters in Washington, D.C., about relief for Sandy victims.

First he said this (video follows with transcript and commentary):

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We are going to continue to push as hard as we can to make sure that power is up throughout the region and obviously this is mostly a local responsibility and the private utilities are going to have to lean forward. But we are doing everything we can to provide them additional resources so that we can expedite getting power up and running in many of these communities. There are places like Newark, New Jersey, for example, where you have 80 percent, 90 percent of the people without power.

Later in his remarks he said this: 

OBAMA: We can't have a situation where that lasts for days on end. And so my instructions to the federal agency has been do not figure out why we can't do something. I want you to figure out how we do something. I want you to cut through red tape, cut through bureaucracy. There is no excuse for inaction at this point. I want every agency to lean forwardand to make sure we are getting the resources where they need -- where they're need as quickly as possible. I want to repeat, my message to the federal government, no bureaucracy, no red tape, get resources where they're needed as fast as possible, as hard as possible.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

NY Times Called Bush’s 2.7% GDP a ‘Letdown,’ But Obama’s Lower GDP a ‘Steady Improvement’

The leftist bias of the New York Times beautifully encapsulated in seven words used about a week before two presidential elections. Headline over Saturday’s editorial on the third quarter GDP creeping up to 2.0 percent under Democrat Barack Obama: “Slow but Steady Improvement.” Headline twenty years ago (October 29, 1992) when Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush was in the White House and the third quarter GDP nearly doubled to 2.7 percent: “Gross National Letdown.”

FNC’s Bret Baier noted the contrasting spins, speculating in his Tuesday night “Grapevine” segment: “The New York Times seems to be changing with the time when it comes to interpreting the country’s economic outlook.”

He then read from the portions of the two editorials which were highlighted in Monday’s “Best of the Web Today,” where James Taranto headlined his item: “Two Papers in One!”

From the New York Times editorial, “Gross National Letdown,” of Thursday October 29, 1992:

President Bush smiled when he learned this week that economic growth during the third quarter reached a surprising 2.7 percent, almost twice the previous rate. But his smile shouldn’t be broad. The new figure almost certainly exaggerates the health of the economy, which continues to creep along at a painfully slow pace. Even the 2.7 figure is half the normal rate of recovery and not enough to bring down unemployment.

New York Times editorial, “Slow but Steady Improvement,” from Saturday October 27, 2012:

The slow pace of the nation’s economic recovery has picked up a bit lately. In the third quarter, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2 percent, beating expectations and the dismal 1.3 percent growth in the second quarter. Over the past year, the growth rate has been 2.3 percent. At that pace, there’s enough momentum to keep unemployment, currently 7.8 percent, from getting much worse.

Via: Newsbusters,
Continue Reading...