Fox News Under Attack Again: Obama Doesn’t Learn From Past Mistakes

With the mid-term elections around the corner, knowing that the Democrats are going to suffer heavy losses, President Barack Obama has once again set his sights on Fox News, one of, if not the only news network that is being critical of this administration. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, another “water carrier” for this White House, Obama made it clear that he viewed Fox News is “ultimately destructive” to the future of the United States of America. David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun’s Z on TV, has more on this, even the quote which ignited this new conflict between the White House and Fox News…

Obama: Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition – it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.

Give the rest of Zurawik’s article a read, it is fairly well done. The Baltimore Sun’s columnist does make the point that previous attacks on Fox News has backfired. While I did make mention of this in a previous post, Zurawik clearly points out how destructive this was to the Obama administration by highlighting Anita Dunn’s loss of employment as the White House’s communications director (though she wasn’t “thrown under the bus” like others who have made such mistakes). With Democrats and Democratic supports backing away and criticizing the previous attack on Fox News, one would think that Obama wouldn’t try such a disastrous political move again. However, ignoring the lessons of last year, we find ourselves now scratching our heads over this new attack on a media outlet critical of this presidency.

The first question is why? Why retry such a failed political strategy? Desperation. Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s blog who is also commenting on this, made the point that this is a poorly planned political move to shift the blame of the suffering economy on Fox News, an organization which is thriving in a country which is struggling financially. This is the same kind of empty argument Wallace C. Turbeville was making at New Deal 2.0, that Fox News’ success must come at the expense of those who are suffering. Just like Turbeville, the President has no proof of this correlation and forwarding such a misguided premise is done for purely political reasons. Only those who aren’t already “exhausted” with defending this administration’s policies, would believe such nonsense.

Why would the President himself make such remarks? The answers is simple, I don’t know. With his poll numbers as bad as they are, why would he give the American people another reason to question his leadership. Surely Rahm Emmanuel or Robert Gibbs could have made similar remarks without drawing this kind of attention. Gibbs had previously echoed Dunn’s remarks when he said Fox News puts out false stories, and the gossip from Washington is that Emmanuel is already stepping down from his position as White House Chief of Staff. With this already starting to backfire, it would have been better for Obama to let someone else make such a statement. For the President himself to do such a thing in an interview with a magazine like Rolling Stone reeks of poor planning.

So how does this look to the average American? Those who already believed Obama wanted to limit freedom of speech have more evidence of this, while those questioning his defense of the First Amendment have been given more reason to doubt he will uphold it. To state that, while you are a defender of freedom of speech, but you feel that some people shouldn’t have it because it is “ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country” does sound more “Nixonian” than Richard Nixon. As for Rolling Stone publishing such an interview, does it surprise anyone at this point that the so many Americans distrust the media? Instead of asking the tough questions, Rolling Stone gave Obama a platform and he got carried away. Instead of reporting on this, the majority of the media has remained silent. I have yet to find a anything on Obama’s statements, and instead of even mentioning the interview with Rolling Stone, CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux has put out a “puff piece” about how the President gave a speech in front of Sandy and Jeff Clubb’s house in Des Moines, Iowa.

With so many people watching Fox News over the various other media outlets, it won’t be long before this story makes the rounds and the Obama administration is once again in trouble for targeting the freedom of speech of a news organization that has been critical of this White House’s failed policies… Pathetic…

UPDATE: Jeff Poor at NewsBusters.org has Greg Gutfeld’s, the host of Fox News’ ‘Red Eye’, response to Barack Obama’s comments. I recommend my modest readership give it a watch, it is good for a laugh, and it makes you think.

UPDATE: I had forgot to put in the video from ‘Drinking with Bob’ concerning Barack Obama’s latest attack on Fox News. For those just scrolling through this post, if you want to know how I feel about this “in a nutshell”, here it is…

Hope Fades: Woman exhausted defending Obama’s policies

My heart goes out to Velma R. Hart. She definitely isn’t short of courage, being a military veteran, but it does take someone of character to not only ask the question she asked, but to do it with such restraint. Both Michelle Malkin and Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey had this up yesterday, along with a slew of other bloggers. It started when RealClearPolitics.com first posted the video from the CNBC “Investing in America” town hall forum and from there it went “viral”.

RealClearPolitics.com also has President Barack Obama’s response and suffice to say, it isn’t honest at all. At this point, “Times are tough for everybody right now, so I understand your frustration”, just won’t cut it anymore. Mrs. Hart herself told CNN this morning that she was hoping for a response that was more “whimsical, magical, very powerful”, something which would settle her nerves on this “new reality” she is facing. If Barack and Michelle weren’t always spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on various luxuries, Mrs. Hart and the rest of America would be able to believe that he was sincere in his response. There is a reason Obama administration is being referred to as the “let them eat cake” presidency, and that Michelle herself is being compared to Marie-Antoinette, the woman who this quote is falsely attributed to. Personally, I’m downright disgusted in the way Barack brushed this woman off. If he had even an ounce of the character his predecessor, George W. Bush had, he would have been far more honest with a supporter who has been defending his failed policies for the last two years.

Those who supported Barack are finally waking up to this “new reality”, and Velma R. Hart’s question yesterday during the CNBC town hall forum is proof of this. Hope has already faded and those who once believed that Obama was “the one they had been waiting for”, are starting to see that his policies are bringing about a “new reality” which they didn’t vote for.

UPDATE: A follow-up to yesterday’s video via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews takes a swing at Barack Obama for a such disappointing town hall forum. While he does direct his focus at the teleprompter, Matthews does make the point that Obama wasn’t being authentic.

Even Arianna Huffington, an avid Obama supporter herself, was upset with Obama’s performance yesterday. Both her and Matthews give praise to Velma R. Hart for her question, for “speaking for us” as the MSNBC host put it. As Morrissey points out in his post, this is the first time in a long time that Barack has been posed such a hard question, noting that the White House’s efforts to avoid even allowing such questions to be asked. With “hope” fading, it would help a lot if Obama would actually try addressing these issues instead of simply providing a empty response to them.

While it isn’t the first time Matthews or Huffington have been upset with this administration, it would be nice to think that Mrs. Hart’s questions yesterday was a wake up call for those who have exhausted themselves defending one failed policy after another.

Terrorist Plot Foiled: Police Arrest Five Suspects in Terror Plot Targeting the Pope

Have an early class this semester so, getting up as early as I did, there are few facts out about this foiled terror plot. This from the Agence France-Presse via the National Post.

LONDON — British police have arrested five men on suspicion of preparing a “terrorist” attack linked to the ongoing state visit of Pope Benedict XVI, Scotland Yard said on Friday.

Police said the men were arrested early on Friday “on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism” but the itinerary and policing arrangements for the pope’s visit remain unchanged.

The five, aged between 26 and 50, were arrested under the Terrorism Act at what police said was a business premises in central London at around 5:45 a.m. local time.

Searches at that property and houses in north and east London have not so far recovered any “hazardous items,” Scotland Yard said.

“Following today’s arrests the policing arrangements for the papal visit were reviewed and we are satisfied that our current policing plan remains appropriate,” Scotland Yard said in a statement.

“The itinerary has not changed. There is no change to the U.K. threat level.”

The pope is spending Friday in London conducting a series of engagements on the second day of his state visit, including meeting Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and holding joint prayers with him at Westminster Abbey.

That service will be attended by figures reportedly set to include Britain’s former prime ministers Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The BBC report I saw described these five terror suspects as “mixed ethnically and foreign born.” Has it gotten so politically correct that you can’t say “Muslim extremist” anymore? More media purposeful ignorance and denial if you ask me. Pathetic…

UPDATE: This just coming in, it seems these “mixed ethnically and foreign born” were indeed “Muslim extremists”, more specially, Algerian radicals. More from Agence France-Presse via the National Post.

…As media reports said the men were Algerian, police were searching several properties in the British capital but reported they had not yet found any “hazardous items.”

The massive security operation for the pope’s four-day visit to Scotland and England is costing up to £1.5-million.

The alert came on the second day of the first-ever papal state visit to Britain…

While it is good to get more details on this terror plot, this particular report starts drifting off topic. Well that is where the story ends and the media bias begins.

…On the first day of his visit, the pope warned of the risk of “aggressive secularism” in Britain and greeted tens of thousands of people at a mass in Glasgow and on the streets of Edinburgh.

The pope has also made some of his clearest condemnations yet of the abuse of children by priests, saying the Catholic Church was not “vigilant” enough about the problem and insisting the revelations of paedophilia “were a shock to me.”

Pope Benedict hinted at the pedophile scandal on Thursday, saying in a speech at a college in Twickenham, southwest London, that it was the job of Catholic schools to provide “a safe environment for children and young people.”

Pope Benedict is expected to meet a group of 10 victims of abuse on Friday or Saturday in London.

The run-up to the visit was clouded by criticism of the Catholic Church’s handling of child abuse by priests and a furore over the £20-million cost.

Protests were small on the first day of the visit in Edinburgh and Glasgow on Thursday, easing anxiety about large-scale demonstrations.

A group of 20 protesters gathered outside the college in Twickenham Friday, waving banners with slogans such as “There is no God — get over it” and “The pope is wrong, put a condom on.”

Three scantily-clad men dressed as angels — sent by a gay dating website — also joined the protesters.

One protester, 47-year-old Gareth Evans, said: “This Church has not changed in centuries and probably never will. This is not a woolly, fluffy, lovely Church. It is a hating Church which is run with a lot of hatred.”

Pope Benedict will travel to the central English city of Birmingham Sunday, where he will preside over the beatification of a 19th century cardinal, John Henry Newman, an Anglican who switched to Catholicism, in the climax of the visit…

Explain to me again how past allegations of pedophilia within the Church relate to a terror plot fueled by Islamic hatred? Explain to me how gay protests of the Pope’s visit relate to this as well? This is a demonstration of how blatantly biased the media is. I don’t need to read David F. Pierre Jr’s book, Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church to know that this hatred towards the Roman Catholic Church exists. One just needs to turn on the news and watch the coverage of the Pope’s United Kingdom visit. Newsbusters.org’s Kyle Drennen has a post up concerning CBS’s attempts to spin this visit as one steeped in “criticism and controversy”. If it was just one news outlet doing this, it wouldn’t be as big a problem, but this is something seen in almost all coverage of the Pope’s visit to the United Kingdom.

It would be nice if, instead of being obsessed with the Church’s stance on “secularism” and past controversies concerning child abuse, these news outlets would report on the terrorist plot without having to bring up everything else. It would also be nice if they could say “Islamic radicalism” when referring to these terrorists, like how they can’t stop tying the Catholic Church to “intolerance” and pedophilia. They could also be honest about child molestation, maybe even point out that such abuse is far more common in the public school system than the Church, and that teachers unions do far more to hide such offenders from prosecution than any Christian organization, even the Catholic Church.

Why not report the story without this bias? I would bet this story would have been different if the “mixed ethnically and foreign born” terrorists were the victims and a group of Catholics were the perpetrators. Disgusting…

George W. Bush DID Win in 2000: Liberals Stick to the “Big Lie”

Things have been a little busy for me lately so I haven’t been blogging, but there is always something that brings me back for to Northern Thoughts and Reflections to put out another blog post. This time, it was CNN Headline News’ Joy Behar…

BEHAR: I think that the tipping point for divisiveness was when the Supreme Court said that George W. Bush was the president and not the people — of the United States. I think that was the moment when the divide began. Don`t blame it on Barack Obama.

I bumped into this while reading Noel Sheppard’s newest post at Newsbusters.org, discussing how conservative radio personality Steve Malzberg humiliated this under achiever. Give the post a look, it is rather enjoyable watching Joy struggle against a smarter and more politically informed individual (then again, I think farm animals would give this twit trouble). In any event, returning to the quote, Joy, like many other uneducated and radical leftists, believe this “Big Lie.” For those who don’t understand this concept, here’s the quote which coined the expression…

All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

In short, a lie that is so outrageous, repeated so many times, is hard not to believe because of the audacity it would take to create such a lie. This “Big Lie” refers to the myth that George W. Bush “stole” the United States presidential election of 2000. While there was a dispute over the results in Florida, let’s not pretend that this was a conspiracy to take a election victory away from Al Gore.

This “Big Lie” was pinned down in 2001 by USA Today in the article ‘Newspapers’ recount shows Bush prevailed’. Dennis Cauchon of USA Today goes into depth outlining that with the exception of Strict Standard, Bush would have won most, if not every recount.

…USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida’s 67 counties. The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots.

The newspapers then applied the accounting firm’s findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.

The results reveal a stunning irony. The way Gore wanted the ballots recounted helped Bush, and the standard that Gore felt offered him the least hope may have given him an extremely narrow victory. The vote totals vary depending on the standard used:

* Lenient standard. This standard, which was advocated by Gore, would count any alteration in a chad — the small perforated box that is punched to cast a vote — as evidence of a voter’s intent. The alteration can range from a mere dimple, or indentation, in a chad to its removal. Contrary to Gore’s hopes, the USA TODAY study reveals that this standard favors Bush and gives the Republican his biggest margin: 1,665 votes.

* Palm Beach standard. Palm Beach County election officials considered dimples as votes only if dimples also were found in other races on the same ballot. They reasoned that a voter would demonstrate similar voting patterns on the ballot. This standard — attacked by Republicans as arbitrary — also gives Bush a win, by 884 votes, according to the USA TODAY review.

* Two-corner standard. Most states with well-defined rules say that a chad with two or more corners removed is a legal vote. Under this standard, Bush wins by 363.

* Strict standard. This “clean punch” standard would only count fully removed chads as legal votes. The USA TODAY study shows that Gore would have won Florida by 3 votes if this standard were applied to undervotes…

While Strict Standard does give the election to Al Gore, because it is such a slim margin, such an election victory would have been dismissed. The Supreme Court decision to halt the recount hasten the inevitable, as recount after recount would have led to the same outcome. Even if the Supreme Court didn’t intervene, the fact that this election was decided in Florida, a state which was dominated by Republicans at that time, made an election victory impossible for Gore. Even if Jeb Bush didn’t intervene, Republicans had a super majority in the Florida State Senate, which would have denied Gore a recount. No matter how one looks at this, it always ends with George W. Bush winning.

Musing from Dallas Seminary has far more to say on this myth, but I think I made my point. I do, however, recommend that my modest readership do give Musing from Dallas Seminary’s post a read if they are unconvinced by the argument I made here. This hard truth doesn’t dissuade those like Joy Behar though. Leftist radicals like her and Michael Moore could never accept that Bush won the presidential election in 2000. This is why they tell these lies, that despite all the evidence to the contrary, George W. Bush, with the assistance of the Supreme Court or another political body, somehow stole Al Gore’s election victory. It is because they keep repeating this “Big Lie” that they do expose themselves as the radicals they are, and as Steve Malzberg said, those who support this view are the minority in the United States, no matter what they themselves would prefer to believe.

Before accepting what they people are saying, just examine the facts. No matter how outrageous their claims are, no matter how willing one is to want to believe these claims, such “Big Lies” are simply that.

James Jay Lee’s Manifesto; A look into the mind of a twisted man

The hostage crisis at the United States Discovery Channel headquarters is now over. As we start to examine how this could happen, let’s take a look at James Jay Lee’s “manifesto”, a list of unreasonable demands he left behind. Thanks to many blogs, including Michelle Malkin’s personal one, we have a full copy of said document.

The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

3. All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore. Instead, talk about ways to disassemble civilization and concentrate the message in finding SOLUTIONS to solving global military mechanized conflict. Again, solutions solutions instead of just repeating the same old wars with newer weapons. Also, keep out the fraudulent peace movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase. World War II had 2 Billion humans and after that war, the people decided that tripling the population would assure peace. WTF??? STUPIDITY! MORE HUMANS EQUALS MORE WAR!

4. Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn’t, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??

5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don’t build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s your resposibility because you reach so many minds!!!

9. Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war.

10. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. Stop Future Weapons shows or replace the dialogue condemning the people behind these developments so that the shows become exposes rather than advertisements of Arms sales and development!

11. You’re also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war.

Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!

It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!

Also, war must be halted. Not because it’s morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental damage modern weapons cause to other creatures. FIND SOLUTIONS JUST LIKE THE BOOK SAYS! Humans are supposed to be inventive. INVENT, DAMN YOU!!

The world needs TV shows that DEVELOP solutions to the problems that humans are causing, not stupify the people into destroying the world. Not encouraging them to breed more environmentally harmful humans.

Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.

You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!

I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.

These are the demands and sayings of Lee.

The list was originally published at SaveThePlanetProtest.com, and while the website was down for most of the day, it is apparently now up and running for everyone to see. After reading Lee’s list of demands, it is obvious that this incident wasn’t going to end peacefully. In a twisted way, Lee got his wish, as there is now one less “filthy human” on the planet. In this way, he got what he wanted.

The truth is that this incident does highlight a radical streak within the environmentalist movement which very few have been willing to address. As Greenpeace’s co-founder Patrick Moore has stated, the environmentalist movement has taken a very “anti-human” approach, and one need not look far for proof of this as today’s event demonstrated. One can fight for a cleaner planet without demanding the end of humanity. Mankind must be part of the solution and not seen as the source of all problems.

Let’s this incident be a lesson to those who refuse to see what this environmentalist radicalism leads to. Not everyone who buys into the “Save the Earth” movement simply wants to do their part by recycling and limiting their “carbon footprint”. There are many like James Jay Lee who will take up arms and demand the rest of us stop having children… Disturbing…