TMFA

Jorge Castenada

2008-02-22T12:19:00.005-05:00

Medved's Misleads on McCain (and Immigration)

2008-02-04T19:29:00.000-05:00

Below is a list of misleading and false statements which Michael Medved has made regarding John McCain and immigration.

1) McCain doesn't undertsand economics: Regarding McCain and his forgettfulness of the fact that he doesn't understand the economy quote Medved said the following responding to a caller (1/30/08): "Do you understand the context about that quote? That was a quote where he was with Phil Gramm, who taught economics for 12 years at Texas A & M"...and then he said that McCain was deferring to someone else regarding economic policies, NOT that he doesn't understand economics (he also said that McCain did the same thing when he was on Michael's show with Lindsey Grahamnesty). FALSE. Below is the exact line from the article:

He is refreshingly blunt when he tell me: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Source: WSJ 11/26/2005

Note no deference to Phil Gramm. Yes, later in the piece it says "OK, so who does he turn to for advice?.....His foremost economic guru is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm" But McCain admits "I still need to be educated". How is there any way to interpret that other than as someone who isn't familiar with economics, NOT as someone who is, but just defers to those more educated?

2) The Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) Bill:

a) According to Michael on 1/28/08 (I believe) he explained that the CIR bill was a "compromise bill". Oh really? The Dems/Liberals got amnesty (or "earned citizenship") for 12 million illegal immigrants. What "compromise" did Republicans get?

b) Michael has also claimed that McCain NEVER, EVER supported amnesty. This has already been thoroughly debunked due to his Tuscon citizen newspaper quotes and the fact that the bill would have allowed everyone who received a Z-visa to live, stay, and work in the US forever.

c) Michael has claimed on at least 5 occasions (back in Nov and Dec 07) that Huckabee's plan only applied to illegal immigrants who had been here since age 5 and enrolled in school since kindergarden. FALSE. As factcheck.org pointed out, this simply isn't true. And when called upon it (by myself), Michael refused to correct the record and tried to change the subject to Huckabee's signing of the no-amnesty pledge (which had only happened 1 day prior).

d) Michael said on 1/30/08 "Most people who are here illegally probably would not get citizenship. Uh, probably a minority would get it..."

FALSE. Completely false. Not only would it grant citizenship to every illegal immigrant who had committed 2 or fewer misdemeanors, it would have allowed anyone with a Z-visa to stay here forever.

e) Michael said on 1/30/08 "..and I know that Governor Romney has run ads saying that McCain supports social security benefits for illegals. He does not. He is opposed to it. He has never favored it."

Then why did McCain vote against a bill that would have prevented "former" illegal immigrants from receiving social security benefits for the time they worked illegally. It's true that McCain isn't for social security benefits for "current" illegal immigrants, because the illegal immigrants would then become "legal" immigrants under his bill.

f) Michael said on 1/30/08 "...Anyone who has actually read that bill or taken a look at what was actually talked about, rather than what was demagogued about; for people to pretend that this status quo is preferable to all of the positive changes that woul dhave been part of the immigration bill.."

First, the reason people were upset with it was because they did read the mammoth (1000+ page) bill and find all the hidden things in it (or lacking from it). Such as the following

1) the illegal immigrants received the Z-visa's before the "enforcement triggers" were in place. So while it is true that the citizenship process does not begin until the borders are supposedly secured, they still would have been allowed to stay here forever on a Z-visa regardless of the border being enforced.

2) The bill only barred criminals who had committed 1 felony or 3 misdameanors from getting citizenship. Thus, a criminal who committed 2 misdemeanors would still have been allowed to stay.

3) Illegal immigrants are not required to learn English for 10 years (including both the 1st and 2nd 4-year Z-visa applications).

4) Affidavit's from non-relatives will count as valid documents to prove an illegal immigrants validity to receive a Z-visa and eventually citizenship.

And there are many more listed here on Jeff Sessions website. (Note this is about the original bill introduced, not the Clay Pigeon amendment introduced late).

Second, Michael and others repeatedly talk about passing the bill vs doing nothing as the only two possibilities when it comes to immigration reform. This simply isn't true. The Border fence bill was already passed back in 2006. Members of the House of Reps introduced the S.A.V.E. act (summary here) which contains most of the same enforcement provisions without any of the amnesty provisions. So this argument about doing nothing vs doing CIR is a false one.

3) McCain's liberal tendencies: Medved said on 1/30/08: "On what issues is McCain a left-winger?"

a) Campaign-Finance (McCain-Feingold---he even supported the law when Wisconsin Right-to-Life challenged it to the Supreme Court)

b) Immigration (see the section above):

c) Guantanamo/Torture: McCain said he would close Guantanamo which would move enemy combatants to our criminal courts.

d) Global Warming: McCain said "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular." And don't forget about McCain-Leiberman

4) Primary Election Results: Michael said on 1/30/08 "Conservatives in this Florida primary supported McCain. They did. He won narrowly among so-called conservatives..."

FALSE. Read the headline of this article: "Exit polls: Conservatives choose Romney over McCain" or in more detail: "According to the exit polls, 62 percent of primary voters identified themselves as conservative and 37 percent of them voted for Mitt Romney, compared to the 29percent who went for McCain. "

Rich, Spoiled Kidz plead for amnesty

2007-08-05T12:24:00.000-04:00

Update 9/2/2007: Folks, they are going to try and pass a bill to get Juan/Alex Gomez amnesty when Congress returns from its August recess (See image above). Get on the phones and call your senators (and esp. Lott & McConnell) to tell them you do NOT support the DREAM Act and do NOT support amnesty for Juan & Alex Gomez.

Update 8/9/2007: Contact the friends of Alex and Juan Gomez and tell them you're sick and tired of people helping illegal immigrants commit crimes. Be respectful = NO DEATH THREATS, NO NAME-CALLING, NO PROFANITY, NO PHYSICAL THREATS. But be completely clear that you find their actions disraceful and wrong.

Scott Elfenbein: qually5@aol.com
Eduard Monteagudo: eddie86xx@aol.com
Scott Friedberg hoopstr221@aol.com
Brian Moraguez brian.e.moraguez@vanderbilt.edu
Jacob Hart jacob88@ufl.edu
Joanna Perdomo joanna.perdomo@gmail.com
Mauricio Perez-Rosas mperezrosas@northwestern.edu
Justin Hesser jzhess88@aol.com
Francisco Vega fave89@gmail.com
Nick Ferero n1ck1654@yahoo.com
Josh Ginsburg ginsburg.josh@gmail.com
Jeri Stone jeri17@bellsouth.net 786-266-1775
Katelin Snow ksnow@wellesley.edu

All the rich spoiled (and mostly white) friends of Alex and Juan Gomez have undertaken a huge lobbying effort to let the 2 illegal immigrants get permanent residency status via HR Bill 3231 (introduced by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). They have already received a 45 day reprieve thanks to the efforts of Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

We need to get mobilized and motivated. Begin by joining the following Facebook group Deport Juan Gomez . Then contact both Florida Senators and several House of Rep members. Their contact info is below. Try the local offices in addition to the main Washington number since Congress has recently gone in summer recess until Sept. 4.

FLORIDA SENATORS
Senator Mel Martinez
Washington:Main: (202) 224-3041 Fax: (202) 228-5171 Toll free: (866) 630-7106
Local offices
Orlando: Main: (407) 254-2573 Fax: (407) 423-0941 Tollfree: (866) 630-7106
Jacksonville: Main: (904) 398-8586 Fax: (904) 398-8591
Miami: Main: (305) 444-8332 Fax: (305) 444-8449
Naples:Main: (239) 774-3367 Fax: (239) 774-2906
Palm Beach:Main: (561) 842-8300 Fax: (561) 842-8949
Pensacola:Main: (850) 433-2603 Fax: (850) 433-2554
Tampa :Main: (813) 207-0509 Fax: (813) 287-9453

Email Sen. Martinez here

Senator Bill Nelson:
Washington, D.C. Phone: 202-224-5274 Fax: 202-228-2183
Local offices
Orlando: Phone: 407-872-7161 Toll Free in Florida: 1-888-671-4091 Fax: 407-872-7165
Miami-Dade: Phone: 305-536-5999 Fax: 305-536-5991
Tampa: Phone: 813-225-7040 Fax: 813-225-7050
West Palm Beach: Phone: 561-514-0189 Fax: 561-514-4078
Tallahassee: Phone: 850-942-8415 Fax: 850-942-8450
Jacksonville: Phone: 904-346-4500 Fax: 904-346-4506
Broward: Phone: 954-693-4851 Fax: 954-693-4862
Fort Myers: Phone: 239-334-7760 Fax: 239-334-7710

Email Sen. Nelson here

FLORIDA HOUSE MEMBERS
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart
Washington DC: Phone: (202)225-4211 Fax: (202)225-8576
Miami: Phone: (305)470-8555 Fax: (305)470-8575

Email Rep. L Diaz-Balart here

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart
Washington DC: Phone: (202) 225-2778 Fax: (202) 226-0346
Miami: Phone: (305) 225-6866 Fax: (305) 225-7432
Collier County: Telephone: (239) 348-1620 Fax: (239) 348-3569

Email Rep. M Diaz-Balart here

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Washington DC: Phone: 202-225-3931 Fax: 202-225-5620
Miami: Phone: 305-220-3281 Fax: 305-220-3291

OTHER IMPORTANT HOUSE MEMBERS
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA--chairman of House immigration subcommittee)
Washington DC: Telephone (202) 225-3072 Fax (202) 225-3336
San Jose: Telephone (408) 271-8700 Fax (408) 271-8713

The HuffPo kidz are at it again

2007-07-30T20:25:00.000-04:00

Scroll Down for Updates (8/02/2007):

Arianna Huffington from Sean Hannity's Show Sunday July 22, 2007:

"We have taken down comments which wishes anybody dead"
"If anybody wishes harm, or death, or any kind of harm to anyone, I will take it down"

Oh really Arianna???? Just a sampling of those comments from the story on John Roberts seizure which are alive and well on Huff Po:

Well, there is a God after all....Let God's will be done!!!!

Lets hope he is injured seriously. Chief Justice John Roberts is a corupt right wing Bush lick ass criminal

A long stay away from the court would be fine. I won't lie, I wish him a long painful recovery. In fact, I'm not so sure I care if he recovers.

Well, I'll speak for MY end of the HUFF community and Hope he croaks in the worst most painful manner.

Maybe he can die from malpractice and show us how tort reform is a good idea when his family takes the high road and doesn't sue.

Smote his ass, God did!

Here is a selection of comments which do not wish Roberts dead, but are quite disgusting and revolting in their own right.

Perhaps he is still loved by the talibangelicals, but not by anyone else

He was screwing gay hookers and snorting meth, you know the GOP routine

It's kind of pointless to bring up Clinton and his dick, when your Repig fellas are molesting kids, frequenting hookers to change their diapers, and asking undercover cops to give them a blowjobs isn't it sparky??

Seizure? Too much Viagara, Oxicoten and Ecstasy?

speaking of 'sucking', Roberts is a closet queer...and frequents some of the D.C. area's gay bars during the work week (Mondays & Tuesdays mainly) so as not to be noticed.

he's a GOP repig so I'm not sure about the whole "human being" thing

I also threw in there the other comments, which were not related to wishing John Roberts ill, to provide examples of what passes for a "reasonable dialogue" among the HuffPo commentators.

UPDATED 7/31/2007 7PM: All comments listed above are still up on the comments section of the original article. #1, #2, #3, #6, #7 are on the first page of comments, #4, #5 are on the second page. And yes, I do have screenshots showing them still up. Also, Huffington Post was contacted regarding these comments (although they really are supposed to be able to police them on their own). I sent them a comment on the "Contact us" page (didn't really want to go through the bother of creating an account at the time) which mentioned specifically every one of the 7 comments listed above last night (7/30/2007) at 10:30 PM. And they remain.....

UPDATED 8/2/2007 8:55PM: More comments "which wishes anybody dead" have been found.

Obama's pathetic racial pandering

2007-07-23T13:07:00.000-04:00

From Obama's speech as the La Raza (the ~~Racists~~, I mean the Race) convention:

Obama: "If there's a child stuck in a crumbling school who graduates without ever learning to read, it doesn't matter if that child is a Latino from Miami or an African-American from Chicago or a white girl from rural Kentucky, she's still our child, and the struggle is our struggle,"

Reality: If there's a child stuck in a crumbling school that graduates without ever learning to read (which coincidentially would not happen in Miami since we have the FCAT which is required for graduation and requires that students read at grade level--10th grade is the final test), that child could go to a different and better school if the Democrats would ever get behind vouchers and merit pay (which Obama did actually endorse once). Of course, that would fracture the unholy alliance with the Teachers Unions.

Obama: The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."

Reality: I thought Obama claimed that he was bringing a tone of hope and promise to Washington. Since when does that include launching personal attacks at those who disagree with you on a particular policy issue. Opponents of amnesty and illegal immigration (which happens to be a large majority of the American public) have many logical reasons to oppose the bill introduced in the Senate, the least of which has to do with race and ethnic origin. And the comparison of civil rights for African American CITIZENS (key word here) to legalization for Hispanic ILLEGAL immigrants is laughable. Especially for those who have committed crimes and/or are gang members.

Only a matter of time before Obama's true colors shown through.

An Open Letter to Paul Krugman

2007-07-10T22:23:00.000-04:00

An open response to Paul Krugman on his latest column regarding health care from July 9, 2007

Mr. Krugman,
It's perfectly reasonable to have a debate about health care and to discuss the pro's and con's of health care provided by the public sector (government) and the private sector (insurance companies/HMO's). However, your recent column does neither.

First, you grossly mischaracterized the discussion on Neil Cavuto's show ("discussed how health care promotes terrorism"), which was about the necessary importing of foreign doctors due to the lack of native ones (mainly due to the effects of socialized medicine).

Second, you claim that the medical-industrial complex and their allies have " used scare tactics to prevent America from following its conscience". Fair enough. But isn't this the exact same technique used by liberals to protest numerous policies from Supreme Court nominations "Robert Bork's America would be marked by back alley abortions" to welfare reform "children begging for money, children begging for food, eight- and nine-year-old prostitutes" and "legislative child abuse" to global warming "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors." and "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers," Hmm, I have yet to see you call out any of those people for their "scare tactics". In any case, it's quite disturbing to see that you resort to the same techniques I mentioned above by questioning the values and morals of anyone who doesn't believe in universal health care.

Also, you cite an example from Sicko "a child who dies because an emergency room that isn’t a participant in her mother’s health plan won’t treat her" but you don't give any of the background info regarding it. The child in question, Mychelle Williams, did not receive the proper tests for Sepsis at the 1st hospital she was taken to, Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center, and this was the eventual cause of death (not being treated quickly enough). The hospital, which is government run--coincidentally (actually not coincidentally), was found at fault along with the 2nd hospital the child was eventually transported to. The insurance company was not involved in denying treatment or care for the child at any point. The fact that the doctor at the hospital did NOT perform necessary and immediate tests to fully determine the child's condition (despite words from a doctor at a Kaiser hospital advising to wait on the tests). Also, note that the 2 hospitals were found liable in the suit; nowhere was the Kaiser insurance plan found negligent. I figured someone of your standing would have properly reserached the examples Moore provides in the film before throwing them in the film. Of course, seeing as how you have done this exact same thing in previous columns (including citing a 98% voter turnout rate for one county in Ohio from a clearly flawed Congressional report when the actual number - 72% - was easily available online at the county's website) I guess I shouldn't be suprised.

Later you say "Medicare — which did enormous good, without leading to a dictatorship". Surely Medicare has helped out older individuals, but I guess you missed the current Comptroller of the US on 60 minutes Sunday "By that I mean that the Medicare problem is five times greater than the Social Security problem." and "With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years."

Then you go on to claim that "Meanwhile, every available indicator says that in terms of quality, access to needed care and health outcomes, the U.S. health care system does worse, not better, than other advanced countries". Again, this simply isn't true. Cuba was ranked 39th in the 2000 WHO survey. Yet, Moore gleefully takes people there to get treatement even though Cuba is ranked behind the US (37th). Also, the Commonwealth Fund did a study which found that the US ranked ahead of Canada in several measures including % of patients who waited 4+ hours to be seen in an emergency room (24%-Canada, 12%-US); % who waited 4 weeks or longer to see a specialist (57%-Canada, 23%-US). While the emergency room times with Britain were comparable with those of the US, the % who had to wait 4+ weeks for a specialist were much higher (60%) in Britain than in the US (23%). So your claim that the US does worse in "every available indicator" than other countries, simply isn't true.

Finally, your claim that "..the French manage to provide arguably the best health care in the world," is where you lose all credibility. Did you not see/hear/read about the Heat Wave which killed nearly 15,000 people in France, during the same time (coincidentally--well, not really) when many doctors, nurses, and other health personnel were on their mandated vacations. Please explain how the "..best health care in the world" lets nearly 15,000 of its citizens die due to a completeyl normal occurence (as compared to a disease or viriological outbreak). Lastly, your reasoning that it is purely fear and scare tactics which are arguing against socialized medicine is disingenuous and pretty much a common tactic on the left. Again, you (just as many other liberals do), have managed to use purely emotion (while citing very minimal statistical or factual or numerical evidence) to declare, ipso facto, that socialized medicine is the answer and those who are opposed to it are mean, immortal, and scaring people. Hmmm, where have heard this recently. Oh yes, the immigration debate.

Liberal Hypocrisy

2007-06-03T09:58:00.000-04:00

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070603/D8PHA8LG0.html

*Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.

*The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.

*Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.

* What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open.

More MMFA dishonesty

2007-04-29T13:03:00.000-04:00

Examples of MMFA's dishonesty:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704270011

The above post talks about Bill O'Reilly claiming that he used "facts and facts alone" in support of the Iraq War. Below are 2 examples of MMFA being dishonest when trying to attack O'Reilly's support of the war.

MMFA Distortion #1: "Prior to the invasion, O'Reilly frequently repeated the Bush administration's claim that Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. "

Really?? Funny how I don't see a single quote/transcript/video of Bill O'Reilly citing Zarqawi-Al Qaeda-Iraq connection. All the links provided are from 2004 and 2005 AFTER the invasion. Yes, O'Reilly cited these claims after the invasion and after the credibility of them had been undermined (according to MMFA). But MMFA does not provide any transcripts showing O'Reilly using these claims pre-invasion.

MMFA Distortion #2: to O'Reilly, "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review.' " As Media Matters noted, a Media Matters search found no evidence of a publication called the Paris Business Review at the time.

The publication is not called "Paris Business Review" It was called the Movement of French Enterprises. CNN article which cites the exact point O'Reilly was making "Meanwhile, the Movement of French Enterprises (Medef) said some French businesses are suffering because of France's position on Iraq. " O'Reilly got the name wrong, but his point was not incorrect.

A Smorgasboard of Liberal lunacy, dishonesty, and hypocrisy

2007-03-04T09:30:00.000-05:00

DISHONESTY:
1) Regarding the filthy comments made by commenters at HuffPo regarding the bombing intended for VP Cheney, Kirsten Powers notes "..These are comments on the blog itself. It's not an actual blogger, it's not Arianna Huffington, it's not anybody who works for her..." Regarding the incident above, this is probably true.

However, in this post Tony Hendra wrote "I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney's Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin' best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about. O Lord, give Dick Cheney's Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor." So here we have a blogger on the site wishing for Dick Cheney's death. Doesn't that contradict exactly what Kirsten said???? Notice Kirsten's defense, "It's offensive, but it's not suggesting assassinating him" So wishing for the death of the leaders of your country is ok, just as long as your don't actually encourage or take any action to see it happen...got it.

LUNACY
2) Joy Behar on the View last week said “That’s right. I agree with that. I don’t want add fuel to the fire, but I don’t know what it’s going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers. I’m sorry.”
....I don’t consider myself a fringe liberal.”

The sad fact is that Behar is right (to an extent). Believing that the POTUSA and VP are liars/murderers/evil is a view held by most liberals (i.e more than just 2-3% of the population). Any normal person would consider her a fringe liberal, but the % of the population with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) seems to keep growing and growing by the day. The view of Bush/Cheney as liars and murderers isn't a "fringe" position among liberals; its a mainstream position.

HYPOCRISY
3) An excellent article here in the Boston Globe talking about some of the slimy pardons that Bill Clinton issued (or tried to issue) and it featured this quote: "It is a legitimate campaign issue," said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers' and her own involvement in the pardons because "the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained. "

Hillary Clinton's brother (Hugh) took $400K from 2 people (1 of which got pardoned and 1 of which got the sentence commuted). Her other brother Tony supposedly had a "loan" for $107K from two people that also got pardoned. A complete breakdown of the pardons can be found here. Seems there's a fight in court over Tony returning his "loan" money which Hillary claimed he never received---"The report said Hillary Clinton's "statement that Tony Rodham 'was not paid' is not accurate." It would seem that this is a legitimate campaign issue because even though Bill Clinton was the one who did the pardoning, it was the brothers of Hillary Clinton who secured these pardons. Who's to say they wouldn't do it again, if she were elected?? Just wait though. The second this comes up, Howard Wolfson is going to start crying about "the politics of personal destruction" and "slash and burn politics". Just you see..

Finally, on a different note, the article states: "President Clinton has said he pardoned Rich at the behest of Israeli officials,..." So here we have a president pardoning an oil financier with ties to Israel ("the Zionist regime") yet there has been absolutely NO outcry from the left. They have carried on for 4 years about "No Blood for Oil" and declared the Israel the "evil Zionist regime" regarding Bush's policies in the Middle East. Yet, the biggest tax cheat in history who made his millions off trading oil with IRAN and has ties to the "Zionist regime" is perfectly legitimate.

MMFA and semantics

2007-02-25T21:49:00.000-05:00

MMFA is great at semantics. They recently ran an article here which said that Bill O'Reilly agreed with his guest's (Wendy Murphy) false claim that the Boston Globe did not cover a child rape case. The Boston Globe did run an article here, with the headline "Increased penalty sought for child endangerment" The main topic of the article is the introduction of a law by a Mass. state Sentaor who introduced a bill to up the max. jail time for child endangerment to 10 years (from 2.5). It does mention the case and the fact that Doyle (the one who didn't stop the rape) got only 1 year in jail (note also that this 1 year was for intimidating a witness; for child endangerment he only got 5 years probation).

So did the Boston Globe cover the child rape case??? It's all a case of semantics. They did run an article which was not focused on the case (i.e. had the case as the main subject of it), but did mention it. So is that considering "covering" something?? It all depends on what your definition of cover is, I suppose. This is merely an opinion and shows how misleading, and lame MMFA has become. Normally, if someone told me that there was an article covering a criminal case, I would expect a writeup of the case to the be the main focus and subject of the article. However, in this case it wasn't. The case was merely mentioned as background info for the main topic of the article. Notice also that in MMFA response, it says "In fact, the Globe did report on Doyle's case " They didn't even use the word COVER in their description of the Boston Globe article. So someone said "BG did not cover topic a" but MMFA lists a newspaper article as evidence of this. However, they don't say "BG did cover topic A"; they say "BG did report topic A". It's all semantics and it just shows you how pathetic and lame MMFA has become.

MMFA misleads again (shocker!)

2007-02-19T14:44:00.000-05:00

MMFA claims that it "...works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims...." Hmm..interesting.

So if you happened to read this item filed on Friday (2/16), they try (and the keep word being try) to rebut Michael Savage's claim that no one is covering the religious connection of the Salt Lake City Mall Shooter because he is a Muslim. Their resources to rebut this included the following:

In fact, a number of media outlets identified Talovic as a Muslim. The Associated Press quoted FBI agent Patrick Kiernan saying that the bureau has no reason to believe Talovic "was motivated by religious extremism" or intended "an act of terrorism."

Notice that they don't actually list or link or give any examples of media outlets that identified Talovic as a Muslim. Also, the AP article they link to (on the NY Times website nonetheless) doesn't contain the quote attributed to the FBI agent. They have no source provided for this quote either. Presumably it appeared somewhere in an AP article. But not in the one that they cite.

But don't question their patriotism

2007-02-10T19:51:00.000-05:00

We hear that line all time from liberals and Democrats when they say completely assinine and false things regarding this country, its principles, the military and etc...but I just have to ask

After they definitively claim "I hate America" and end up damaging our ability to obtain financial data by actively give away our terror-fighting secrets, are we now allowed to question their patriotism?????

PS. Bill Keller is a total moron.

6/25/2006
"We weighed most heavily the Administration's concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling...... The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program. "

2/2/2007
"The European Central Bank must take action by April to stop the transfer of personal information from Swift, the bank-data consortium, to American authorities for use in antiterrorism investigations, a regulatory agency said Thursday."

Liberals vs Liberals on the war

2007-02-01T20:52:00.000-05:00

So William Arkin wrote a post trashing the troops saying that they're not better than the rest of us and calling them mercenaries. Then he came back and apologized (sort of) for calling them mercenaries. Then he came back with a new post pretty much reiterating his original point and he said something interesting:

"I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor."

What's extremely ironic about this statement is the fact that it directly contradicts Maureen Dowd and others who claim that victims of a tragedy (parents who buried their children who died in Iraq) have an absolute moral authority regarding the war.

So which is it liberals? Is it only the troops who can made decisions and judgements regarding the war (as Dowd says) or everyone (as Arkin says)??

Spoiled Idiots

2006-11-26T12:40:00.000-05:00

If you've ever wondered what happens to extremely spoiled, rich, uneducated, lazy high school students who graduate from extremely expensive private schools and go on to attend expensive, privileged universities, look no further than this article from Newsweek 11/13/06:

In a nutshell, this girl wasted thousands of dollars on a useless degree (philosophy) and doesn't have the intelligence to ask her parents or look on the internet how to fill out a W-4 or start a Roth IRA. Below is a summary of everything that is wrong with the article published. (Note: Because this was submitted to Newsweek for publication, the tone in it is rather civil. A normal posting on here would have been much more sarcastic and harsh).

I have to say that I feel no sympathy whatsoever for Caitlin Petre and her whining diatribe ("My Turn", 11/13/06) about how she didn't learn anything useful in college. For starters, she was the one that chose a completely useless major (not my words, but the words of one of my high friend's dad's who majored in Philosophy), rather than taking a finance class where she could have learned what a Roth IRA was and how to fill out a W-4 or an intro computers class where she could have learned how to use a spreadsheet program. Second, its quite sad that people who attend prestigious universities and apparently do quite well academically, don't have the common sense to be able to figure out a W-4 form by reading it, the courage to ask their boss how to properly fill it out, the intuition to ask their parents about the form or a Roth IRA, or the creativity to do a little research on the internet regarding those topics. Thirdly, how truly spoiled this girl (and many others today) are became very obvious when she claimed "I couldn't imagine myself in an entry-level administrative position staring at a spreadsheet for eight hours a day.." There are people all over this country who would kill to have an entry level administrative position as a steady job with full benefits. Yet, apparently, she would feel too bored and thus, the job isn't for her. Finally, she asks, "when I spent a ton of time and money on my fancy degree, what exactly was I buying? The ability to think, some might say. OK, fine, that's important." Maybe for others, but not for herself. If she did actually buy/earn the ability to think, then she might have been able to use that ability to think of where to ask or find out information regarding W-4's, Roth IRA's, or spreadsheets (boss, fellow employees, parents, internet). It's very sad that overprivileged spoiled kids are spending 4 years and many thousands of dollars of their parents money only memorizing and repeating what is taught to them in class and still can not figure out how to learn about a new topic or idea when they come across it.

Liberal Hypocrisy Example #323

2006-11-02T19:39:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to point out another example of liberal hypocrisy (i know, i know they're everywhere). James Carville and someone else the other day (can't remember) brought up the idea that John Kerry isn't running for election this year and that we're not reliving the 2004 election. Funny, because all you hear from every Democrat out there is about George Bush this, George Bush that, that they're against George Bush on this issue/that issue, my opponent voted with George Bush 90% of the time, etc. In the Cardin-Steele debate from last Sunday on MTP, Cardin/Russert brough up Bush 7 times in about 45 minutes. So I find it laughable when people like Carville complain that Kerry's remarks aren't relevant and say that he isn't the issue when they have been trying to do the exact same thing regarding George W Bush for the last 6 months.

MMFA likes to twist words

2006-10-30T21:54:00.000-05:00

On a recent item here, MMFA showed exactly why they are completely biased and unreliable. Read the following section from that article:

"During the discussion, Powers claimed that "there actually are some substantive problems with the Michael J. Fox ad that I think are fair criticisms, such as claiming his opponent doesn't support stem cell research. Not true. Doesn't support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which are really two completely different things." In fact, as Media Matters documented, in his McCaskill ad, Fox stated that McCaskill's Republican opponent, Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), "opposes expanding stem cell research," and Talent has indeed opposed expanding some forms of stem cell research. As Media Matters has noted, while Talent supports adult stem cell research, he is opposed to stem cell research that involves "destroying a human embryo." Talent has also opposed a proposed Missouri constitutional amendment to legalize stem cell research in the state and has voted against easing the restrictions President Bush imposed on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research."

Now, the word twist happens here: "Fox stated that McCaskill's Republican opponent, Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), "opposes expanding stem cell research," and Talent has indeed opposed expanding some forms of stem cell research."

Notice how MMFA joins those 2 statements together in that the second affirms the first ("has indeed") but that the 2nd statement has the words "some forms of" inserted whereas the first statement says "opposes expanding" withougt any clarifiers. Thus, it would appear that the first statement means to ALL types of stem cell research whereas the 2nd statement makes it clear that Talent only opposes expanding SOME forms of stem cell research; not stem cell research in general. They're tricky. But not too slick for us..

"Racist" RNC Harold Ford ad

2006-10-27T16:58:00.000-04:00

An ad was aired poking fun at Harold Ford and his views/actions here:

A (pathetic) response to the original ad, which calls the ad racist is here:

What's funny is the poster's attempt to "discredit" this ad and point out it "racist" messages is so pathetic that it mirrors the Democrats and shows how inept they are winning elections and arguing issues.
Just to correct a few things in the ad.

1. People are stupid and will vote for Harold Ford because he's handsome. Yes, that is exactly what the ad is poking fun at. Much the same way Barack Obama is praised because of his charisma and charm.

2. So I'm guessing you are in favor of not being able to wiretap terrorists considering that you didn't actually address the issue raised by the person in the ad, but instead recycled a 200+ year old quote. Last time I checked preventing terrorist attacks that could kill thousands - hundreds of thousands wasn't "a little Temporary Safety". Guess it is in your book.

3. Estates > $2 million pay taxes (again) on some money that was already taxed. So we can tax people multiple times over and over again, but can't listen to private phone calls of terrorists, cool? cool.

4. No, it wasn't black-face you moron. It's called camouflage. It's what's hunters do to cover up up their skin so that they less visible when in the woods. Of course if you had ever met anyone who had ever hunted before you might know that.

5. Harold Ford attended a Playboy sponsored party in Jacksonville, Florida. This actor is playing a person at that party (possibly Playboy bunny) who met Harold. Got that?

6. well, being right on 1 out of 9 ain't bad.

7. Maybe Bill Clinton could have stopped N Korea from enriching uranium (in addition to just plutonium as the framework agreed to) and could have stopped them from getting a bomb. Oh wait, he was too busy sending Madeline Albright over there to present Kim Jong Il with signed basketballs..my fault.

8. Cable TV companies air porn movies in addition to the 98% of non-porn content they air. They do NOT produce them.

9. Did I mention that Harold Ford went to a playboy sponsored party at the Super Bowl? Because apparently you missed the memo on that one.
Personally, I could care less if he went to a Playboy Party (unless he was married). I'd go myself if I got the chance and I was single. But the point of the ad (and albeit a weak one) is that Harold Ford doesn't represent the values of most Tenneesseans because he is going to parties hosted by Playboy. Nothing about black men and white women or racism or any other pathetic arguments you liberals are trying to make. End of Story.

Hillary Clinton shows her true colors

2006-10-24T20:20:00.000-04:00

-From the debate on 10/22/2006 in NYC vs John Spencer (video available here):

"Social Security is one of the greatest American programs ever created..."

Yes, Social Security, otherwise known as "We're the government and we think you're too stupid to manage your own money, so we're going to create a program where we make you pay us some of your income now when you earn it and then in 30-40 years you'll be able to get it back at an extremely low return rate, much much lower than you could have earned in real estate stocks or just buy putting your money in a savings account (which is actually federally guaranteed unlike Social Security)"

Liberal Hypocrisy Example #322

2006-10-19T20:18:00.000-04:00

Liberals are constantly complaining about voter suppression and voters being given inaccurate information (flyers which supposedly told black people to vote on the wrong day or that if people have unpaid parking tickets they will not be allowed to vote). Yet, now they go to court to sue in Florida to keep printed signs which would explain that votes for Mark Foley would actually count for his replacement (Joe Negron) and NOT for the disgraced child-predator.

So which is it? Do Democrats want voters to be completely informed regarding elections or not? They have a problem (and justifiably so) with inaccurate and false fliers concerning voting but they also have a problem with accurate and truthful fliers being posted regarding voting. It's just another example of liberals doing whatever is best for them in a given situation, NOT following the true principles that they actually believe in (like when they claim they support free speech, yet shout people down and disrupt talks and seminars with and without violence)

Liberal Hypocrisy #321

2006-09-07T21:28:00.000-04:00

MMFA has made a big stink about Path to 9/11 which is set to air on ABC this weekend because it supposedly contains "numerous distortions and falsehoods" (the present count is at 4). One of their main complaints was that it was being billed as a documentary (even though it isn't and ABC has admitted some scenes are fictionalized). Fair enough. However, did MMFA complain once about the release of Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine? No, of course not, despite the fact that they were billed as documentaries (i.e. truthful) and contained numerous distortions and falsehoods.

DAVID BROCK SMACKDOWN--CARLSON STYLE

Case Closed

2006-09-03T15:48:00.000-04:00

The best line from the recent coverage regarding Joe Wilson and the "outing" of Valerie Plame from the Union Leader:

"The facts are quite clear. There was no conspiracy to out an undercover CIA agent. None. Zero. Nada. It did not happen. End of story.

Now, can we finally drop this non-issue and move on?"

Full article here

It takes one to know one

2006-07-22T23:33:00.000-04:00

Clearly marymary (the owner of Michelle Malkin is an idiot) must be familiar with idiocy to be able to determine that Malkin in an idiot.

For example, looking at her post here from July 10, she writes about a girl in Nigeria who was killed by Muslims because she had some type of anti-religious material (as mentioned on Malkin's site):

"She’s such a bigot. Yes, apparently, the youths who made up the lynch mob were Muslims. But what the hell does it matter? People who participate in lynchings are despicable whatever their religion.

Murderous thugs are murderous thugs. The Muslim religious fanatics who killed that poor Nigerian girl are no better or worse than the Christian religious fanatics who bomb abortion clinics or kill gays, or hang black men for dating white women. They’re called fanatics for a reason."

The reason it matters that the mob was Muslim is because it fits a predictable and common pattern of behavior: fanatical Islamic men inflicting death and violence on "infidels" in the name of their religion. Because you don't see stories about Christians killing people for possessing or handing out anti-Christian literature or Buddhists killing people for possessing or handing out anti-Buddhist literature or Hindus or any other common worldwide religion doing the things that Islam has been doing for years now: widespread justifiable death and destruction in its name.

Regarding her second point about fanatics, it is true that the mob in Nigeria are despicable beings just as people who bomb abortion clinics or kill gays or hang black people or anyone who inflicts intentional unjustifiable death, destruction, and mayhem on others. However, their is a difference between today's islamo-fanatics and Christian religious fanatics.

1) The Christians who hung black people for dating white women were from many years ago (mostly 1700-1800's). Those do not exist on a widespread or regular. Yes, there may be 1 person who is a Christian who kills a black person for dating a white person nowadays. But it is not a widespread movement, which has repeatedly inflicted death and destruction through violence in recent times. The closest thing to a modern day lynching was James Byrd's 1998 dragging death and there is no evidence that the men were Christian or committed this crime in the name of Christ.

2) Regarding the crimes against abortion clinics, there have been a total of 7 people murdered in abortion clinic violence Stats here. Even if you throw in attempted murder (17), you have 24 people that have been affected. Over 2900 people alone died on 1 day alone (9/11) in the name of Islamo-facist terror, yet you are trying to morally equate this to 7 deaths in the name of Christian-facist terror. This doesn't even include the US Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the Quran riots in Afghanistan, the aforementioned girl from Nigeria, the Bali nightclub bombing, etc.. Also notice that there have not been any murder attempts since 2000 whereas Islamo-facist terror happens almost every day.

Mary do you still view a few fringe Christians the same as thousands (or hundreds of thousands) Islamo-facists that want death for America?

Liberal hypocrisy--example #320

2006-07-09T19:41:00.000-04:00

I actually am for strict interpretation of election laws, after I argued against them...

That John Kerry quote just keeps coming back in different forms..

Back in 2004, Democrats argued vigorously that someone who drops out of a race after the mandatory date for being replaced on the ballot (Robert Toricelli), should still be replaced. And they won

Fast forward to 2006, and now Democrats argue that someone who announces they are dropping out of a race after the mandatory deadline should stay on the ballot. And they win

So either you are for strict interpretation or you are for "liberally construed" election laws to provide a "full and fair ballot choice for the voters.."?

Or when you're a hypocritic liberal, both..

An email to our socialist friend--Gerardo Sandoval

2006-06-24T11:30:00.000-04:00

Mr Sandoval,

You truly are a disgrace. After hearing your comments about eliminating the military and regarding illegal immigration, I can only come to the conclusion that you have a brain impediment of some sort. On your most recent appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, you claimed the following things:

"If we sent all these folks home, 1 or 2 people might be safe as in the victims in Tennessee, but many other goods and services in the US economy would not be produced and that really is the issue."

Let's look at that statement part by part. First, you say "1 or 2 people", are you out of your mind??? More like 1 or 2 thousand people..

"In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones (including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings). In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens (who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges) link to data here

Now let's examine the next part of your statement. You say "might be safe" Might be safe??? Hmm....being alive and living versus being dead (as those in Tennesse presently are and as officer Donnie Young presently is). You honestly think being dead versus alive is considered "might be safe". Not definitely would be safe or would guaranteed be safer, but might be safe? Are you serious??

3rd you say "many other goods and services in the US economy would not be produced" Oh really? Because we didn't have goods and services back in the 60's and 70's when the illegal immigrant population was extremely small compared to today's 11-12 million. Also, these goods and services would be produced, just at a higher price (since many employers would be forced to actually pay the minimum wage for a job). Also, I thought you guys were all about living wages and making sure people get paid enough, yet you have no problem with illegal immigrants driving down wages of Americans for working for less than minimum wage???

Last, referencing the production of goods and services you say "that really is the issue." So you're telling me that the production of cheap goods by illegals is more important than the safety and well-being of American citizens. Are you mentally stable? Seriously, how do you believe that?

Get out your (Bob) Geiger counter

2006-04-29T23:26:00.000-04:00

So boredom one day drove me to go back to the holy mecca of angry, raging, far-left, smear politics at www.democrats.com. I came across a post by Bob Geiger under the heading "Friday Fruitcakes" seen here. After reading some of the posts and Bob's witty response, I decided to write to Bob. Here is the email I sent Bob (Yes, there are numerous typing mistakes; not a good day).

Bob,

Your "Friday Fruitcakes" post is a perfect example of why you guys keep losing elections. When people right in with valid criticisms of your sides actions and viewpoints, you try to change the subject because you can't debate the issue. For example, "If your intent was to demonstrate even a shred of moral authority by saying your son is in Iraq, forget it. " So Cindy Sheehan (who had a child in the war) has the "moral authority" to comment on the war in Iraq but this father (who has a child int he war) doesn't have the "moral authority"? Can you say hypocrisy? This is exactly the kind of stuff that your side does/says all the time. Also, referring to Bush you say "that your president -- he's damn sure not mine -- ". Actually, he is your president (assuming of course that you are a US citizen) just as the 2 senators from your state are your senators, regardless of whether you voted for them or not. Finally you say "because of your ignorant, sheep-like support for them, it is on yours as well." So any person who supported the war (or a policy) is responsible for the deaths of people that happen as a result of that war (or that policy)? Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy are holding up passage of a National Sexual Offender Database. So their policy right now is preventing this from getting passed. So the consequences of not having a national database would be on their hands, if say a predator moved from one state to another, wasn't tracked (because their is no national database currrently), and then assaulted or murdered someone. So people who ignorantly support Reid and Kennedy would have blood on their hands on well, according to your reasoning?

P.S. Please explain how adding more taxes (windfall profits tax) to the price of gasoline is going to lower the price??

Bob replied quickly and here is his reply with my reply to it in bold below each section...

Yes, this is a canned message and it is the only response you will get from me.

So you often get emails from people pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in your arguments?

It is obvious that we are on opposite sides of a great social and political divide in our country. It is my personal belief that we are in something akin to a political civil war in America and I consider people like you -- at least based on the content and tone of your correspondence -- to be my political enemy.

Yes, there is a great divide between the following: the side that likes America in general and how it is and those that hate America and want to change it radically because they think America is an evil country. I fit the first category; You and your ilk fit the 2nd category.

As such, even sending you a canned e-mail represents about 60 seconds too much time for me to waste on someone like you.

Then why did you bother to send it?

Let me be very clear: I don't care about you. I don't care about your opinions. If I see a car sporting a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker broken down on the side of the road, I do not stop to help.

But Bob, according to Howard Dean, Republicans are the ones that are "mean" and "evil". Now you're telling me that you are the person who wouldn't stop to help someone of the side of the road. So are you a Republican? Because that seems like a "mean" or "evil" thing to do. And Howard Dean said Republicans are "mean" and "evil" so I don't get it, Bob?? You obviously do care about my opinions or you wouldn't have taken your precious time to respond

Am I getting through to you yet?

Yes, you hate Republicans Bob. I understood that after being on the website for 5 seconds

If you support George W. Bush, his administration and the Republican party you are partially responsible for a war that has the vast majority of the world hating our country and you have the blood of thousands of dead American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died in Bush's war on your hands.

What about if you support Bush, but not the administration or Republican party. Or if you support the party but not Bush. Do you have to support all three in order to be "partially responsible"? Or 2 out of 3? But seriously, anytime America is going to enter or start a war would you put that up to a world vote, since its more important that the world doesn't hate us, than our own interests? Also, does FDR have the blood of American troops on his hands for entering World War II? And Japanese/German blood? Does that theory of yours apply to all wars? or only ones started by George W Bush (that's the guy you hate right?)

And don't you have better things to do than correspond with a liberal political writer?

Don't you have better things to do than to respond to me?

After all, your side is about to lose the House of Representative in November and, not long after that, your president will be impeached for his lies and his crimes. If you don't want that to happen, you better get to work on your sickening agenda. Rest assured, I will spend every spare minute this year working to defeat Republicans and not debating every idiot on your side who actually believes they can step into the rhetorical ring with me.

Bob, the reason you don't want to debate them is because you can't. You are incapable, both because of your pure hatred and because the majority of Americans do not agree with your radical left-wing agenda. I would love to debate you at some point so it can be shown how foolish you are. Good luck taking the House of Representatives in November; you guys will win it one of these years.

You will receive no further response from me -- other than to appear in my Friday Fruitcakes column, in which I make fun of ignorant people like you, because you are not worthy of debate.

Hmm...Bob you seem mighty full of yourself for someone who can't even to bother debating the emails people sent you? I wrote about 4 things in my email to you yet you only responded to 1 of them. Why was that Bob? I'm the ignorant one, yet you are the one who posts emails and then doesn't respond to the points in the emails, but instead goes off on tangents about how much you hate Bush, the Iraq War, etc..so I'll ask you again. How does Cindy Sheehan (who had a child serve in Iraq) have the moral authority to comment on the Iraq War, yet the person who wrote you an email in last week's column (who has a child serving in Iraq) does not?

Let's wait and see his reply

GOP House 2006 Campaign Video

2006-04-17T23:24:00.000-04:00

"I actually did vote against the felony amendment before I voted for it."

or

"I did vote for the felony amendment after I voted against it."

Katrina Watch

2006-04-10T08:17:00.000-04:00

Our favority loony liberal pundit Katrina Vanden Heuvel (ok, 2nd favorite---Paul Krugman is still the top of the list) appeared on This Week on March 26 during the Roundtable segment. And of course, she was ridiculous as usual.

KVH: "Undocumented immigrants are the backbone of this economy. They do the suburban lawns in this country, they take care of the kids, the economy in this country would be in real trouble.."

Yes, 5% of the nation's workforce (a majority of which work at or below minimum wage) are the backbone of this economy. Not middle class professionals. Not small business owners or entrepreneurs. Not large corporations that employ hundreds or thousands of people. But the people who cut grass, wash dishes, pick fruit, and babysit kids. Yes, they are the backbone.

George Will did respond to her ridiculous claim on the show saying "By the way the backbone of our economy is Microsoft and Silicon Vally, it's not raking leaves.."

KVH: "..What's happened in our country is some of the White Supremecist thinking that used to be represented by David Duke has been absorbed by people like Tancredo. That's a very dangerous threat, the draconian legislation in the house is un-American. It's obscene"

Yep, only a matter of time (3 min 50 seconds to be exact) before she pulls out the race(ist) card. So basically any person who wants border security before a ~~guest-worker~~, ~~earned citizenship~~, amnesty plan is a racist because they hate minorities and don't want them to come into the country illegally. Guess that would mean that 66% of Americans are racists. I also find it ironic that the side which is constantly complaining about being called un-American when they call the president a murderer or a war profiteer or a facist (i.e. dissent to them) now has no problem calling the other side's view un-American.

George Will also got her with a good response to the David Duke comment. "Well they do if the debate becomes characterized, I'd say mischaracterized, like Karina just did with David Duke and White Supremacists and all the rest, none of that is involved."

KVH: "I don't support guest worker. I support earned citizenship."

Translation: Let as many illegals in as possible, let them all become citizens and let them all vote for us.

Howard Dean--a lying hypocrite

2006-04-06T17:04:00.000-04:00

Howard Dean is almost comical these days. He will go on a national news program, say things that are completely false with a straight face, and have no problem with it at all. You almost want to admire him; he's kind of a like those Big Tobacco execs who testified repeatedly that cigarrettes aren't addictive or that they don't cause lung cancer. Let's take a look at one statement from Hardball last night--4/5/2006 (Video here), (Transcript here),

Dean: "This is not so much a difference about policy, although there is one, it’s a difference of how you treat people. Are we going to treat people with respect? Yes."

Examples of Howard Dean treating people with respect:
1) Describing the struggle between Republicans and Democrats: "a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good." (i.e. Republicans are evil)

2) On describing why Democrats lost the 2004 elections: We lost the 2004 elections to "brain-dead" Republicans because of the Democrats' "tendency to explain every issue in half an hour of detail."

3) Referring to Republicans: "Most of them had never made an honest living in their lives.."; "I'm Tired Of The Ayatollahs Of The Right Wing..."; "I hate the Republicans..."; "The Republicans are all about suppressing votes...."

MMFA & Irony

2006-03-31T18:13:00.000-05:00

So MMFA has done 3 4 studies on the guests of political talk shows to "prove" that many more conservatives/Republicans are guests than liberals/Democrats. Those can be found here, here , here , and here . So one would reasonably conclude that they want more progressive/liberal voices to be heard on these type of shows. So yesterday they put a post here regarding Juan Williams and some comments he made regarding the teenagers who left school to protest the upcoming illegal immigration legislation. There were two things ironic about this post. The first was that the meaning of what Williams said was only mentioned in the headline, summary, and first paragraph; nowhere in the article was what he said discussed or analyzed. The whole post was about how Williams had ignored the NPR policy or "obligation to stay reportorial" and not to give "personal opinions on programs that are looking to appear fair and balanced by hauling in someone from NPR to be the token lefty." This leads to the second or more amusing irony.

MMFA has used to 4 studies to demand that more liberal/progressive voices be heard on these opinion/political type shows. Yet, now they are criticizing Juan Williams and Mara Liasson (also mentioned in the post) for going on them and giving their viewpoint (which is generally liberal). So which is it MMFA?? Do you want more progressives on these shows or don't you??

Joe Scarborough v Cindy Sheehan

2006-03-18T10:37:00.000-05:00

I like Joe Scarborough. He may not get very good ratings, but he is a Conservative with his own program and I usually agree with what he says. Also, he isn't afraid to criticize Bush/Republicans when they are doing the wrong policy.

That being said, he really dropped the ball when he interviewed Cindy Sheehan the other night (3/16/2006) on his program. The transcript can be found here. The video of the interview is up on his homepage here; it's the first thing listed at the top of the page. In any case, he let Sheehan get away with numerous distortions and falsehoods throughout the program. Below is a copy of the email I sent to Joe:

Joe,

I like your show, try to catch it whenever I can, and generally agree with you on most issues (die-hard Republican), but your interview with Cindy Sheehan was just terrible. You let her just spin, distort, and lie with any tough follow up questions. I'm going to go through the whole transcript of the interview and show you how it should have been done. THe bold parts are my comments....

SCARBOROUGH: And I want to ask you about your son, Casey. Do you think—obviously there‘s been a split in your family over your activities. Do you think your son, Casey would agree with what you‘re doing?

"SHEEHAN: I know Casey would agree with what I‘m doing. He didn‘t want to go to Iraq, he did it out of a sense of duty. He did it because his buddies were going...."

Oh really? He didn't want to go to Iraq, yet he voluntarily re-enlisted after his time was up. And it's good to see that your son is so much of a independent thinker that he decides to re-enlist because "his buddies are doing it" Isn't that the excuse that like 15, 16 year olds use in high school for why they drink or do drugs. Because my friends are doing it???

SHEEHAN: "Well, his definition of a terrorist is someone who kills innocent men, women and children. And we know by a study taken last November, that - in November of 2004, that 100,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed...."

That is completely false. The study was completely useless and it had a 95% Confidence Interval between 8000 - 194000 deaths. Thus, it took 100,000 as the midpoint and claimed that it was the accurate estimate. For further information on how the study is not accurate http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

SHEEHAN: "And just because someone is an elected leader of a country doesn‘t give them the right to do that."

Well, it actually does give them the right to do that after Congress gives them authorization (which it did 77-23).

SHEEHAN: "The war was based on lies. "

Wrong again...the following article pretty much breaks that down responding to a column Frank Rich wrote (since him and Sheehan are on the same page). http://www.nysun.com/article/23556?access=454877

SHEEHAN: "But Osama bin Laden and 16 Saudi Arabians that went through—a lot of them went through Dubai to get to America, they‘re the ones that perpetrated that crime against America, not the people of Afghanistan and not the people of Iraq....And I think you go after the criminals, you don‘t go after innocent people."

And where did bil Laden and those 16 Saudi's train and live and practice hijacking planes and taking hostages??? In Afghanistan!!! We weren't attacking the "people of Afghanistan"; we were attacking the government of the country otherwise known as the Taliban which offered assistance to bin Laden and the 16 Saudi's.

SHEEHAN: "..And if you look at the history, World War II happened because of World War I and the suppression and sanctions against the people of World War I...."

Yep Cindy, Japan attacked the US & China because of the sanctions we put on them after World War I. You nailed it.

Keep up the good work Joe. Everybody has an off day.

Thanks
Name ommitted in post

MMFA, Keith Olbermann, and Personal Attacks

2006-02-24T13:10:00.000-05:00

Go look at this post on MMFA. It highlights how Keith Olbermann handed out awards (Worser and Worst Person in the World) to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Here's what is ironic/funny/sad about this post.

It just really proves how MMFA has disintigrated into what supposed to be a reputable website pointing out conservatives misstatements, lies, and distortions into a political attack website. They announce that Keith Olbermann awarded "Worst/Worser People in the World Awards" to BOR and Limbaugh. There's no conservative misinformation in that. They only thing in this post that resembles conservative misinformation are what BOR and Rush said which resulted in the awards and MMFA already did separate articles on each of those remarks here, here, and
here. So why are they wasting time posting Keith Olbermann's personal attack. Speaking of which, Olbermann says that BOR would be a mime without personal attacks. Yet he hands out awards called "Worst/Worse Person in the World". So Bill O'Reilly engages in personal attacks, but Olbermann, who designates someone as the "Worst Person in the World" doesn't?? Regarding MMFA, are there not enough quotes, remarks, or stats for MMFA to analyze anymore that they have to resort to posting personal attacks done by other bombthrowers.

MMFA, BOR, and Christian Amanpour

2006-02-20T17:55:00.000-05:00

MMFA has made it a habit to relentlessly pound Bill O'Reilly for the last 18 months on continually taking quotes or statistics out of context and refusing to provide the full transcript of the remarks or quote. That's why I find it funny (and again sad) that they have done the exact same thing.

In the following post MMFA said "Bill O'Reilly claimed that remarks by CNN's Christiane Amanpour show that she has a "rooting interest" in the Iraq war being a disaster, though nothing she said supports O'Reilly's assertion."

Amanpour said the following quote: "And I cannot tell you how awful I feel for Bob and Doug and for their families, their wives, their children who have to put up with them going away and waiting for them just like our families do when we come back. But, as [former CNN correspondent] Peter Arnett said and I think that the others have said, that, number one, it's our responsibility. Number two, if we don't do it, who does it? We have had so -- we have to have an independent eye on these conflicts. The war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster and journalists have paid for it, paid for the privilege of witnessing and reporting that and so have many, many other people who have been there. And I think that's terribly, terribly difficult for us and unfortunately, for some reason which I can't fathom, the kind of awful thing that's going on there now on a daily basis has almost become humdrum. So, when something happens to people that we identify, like Bob and like Doug, we wake up again and realize that, no, this is not acceptable what's going on there and it's a terrible situation.

Parts in bold were the sentences used on the O'Reilly Factor. Bill then had a
discussion with Napoleon Byars from the University of North Carolina School of Journalism. I'm not going to reprint the entire transcript (that can be found
here), but MMFA
took one quote from it and pasted on their website as proof of their assertion.

O'REILLY: No, I know that. But look, you have to look at it, professor -- and I'm sure you know this because you do this every day -- in the sense of how she's now perceived in her coverage on CNN. I mean, she's declared herself to say it's a disaster. So, you can draw by that that she has a rooting interest in it being thus.

But notice O'Reilly never said that she has a rooting interest in the Iraq War being a disaster. He only hypothecized to the Professor that one can come to the conclusion that she has a rooting interest in it being a disaster. He never uttered words "She has a rooting interest in the Iraq War being a disaster". Also, MMFA conveniently does not publish the entire transcript of the interview during which Bill said

"Well, I think she's talking about the chaotic terror bombings that occur on a daily basis with, you know, horrible casualties. I think that's what the woman is talking about, Colonel. And surely, you understand that there are analysts, some of them do work for Fox, who feel that the war is not going that well and that the ultimate outcome is still in doubt."

"Well, Ms. Amanpour clearly feels from her vantage point, and she's been there as well obviously, a brave woman I must say, clearly feels that this is not going well for the USA. How do you see it, Professor Byars?"

"Absolutely. People make mistakes, sir. I make them every night. I make them every night. People make mistakes. We're not trying to condemn anybody here."

As one can clearly see, O'Reilly was not trying to hold up Amanpour and slaughter her for saying that the war has been a disaster so far. He never said that she had a rooting interest in the war; he said that by her (who is supposed to be neutral) saying that it is a disaster, it might give the impression that she is not neutral but is instead rooting for it to turn out one way or the other (i'll let you guess which way)...

MMFA and Impeachment

2006-02-20T14:01:00.000-05:00

My first post on how MMFA distorts...it doesn't really compare to some of the more significant moments in life--graduating from college, getting your first job, getting married, buying a house, etc...but it still may have some significance. We'll have to see what the site looks like in a year to determine that I suppose. In any case, although MMFA mission claims to be monitoring conservative misinformation, it seems greatly in favor of impeachment charges against President Bush (or King George as Katrina VH likes to call him). Thus, we will be looking at one part of the following MMFA post

From that post: "As Media Matters also noted, in that same column, Milbank depicted advocates of impeachment as a fringe element of the Democratic Party -- which he said is in one of its "periodic splits between pragmatism and symbolism" -- while ignoring polling that has shown that a majority of respondents believes Congress should consider impeaching Bush over his authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance. Moreover, as Media Matters previously noted, a poll from November 2005 found that 53 percent of Americans thought that Congress should consider impeachment "[i]f President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."

1) Advocates of impeachment do not equal Considerers of impeachment. People who agreed with the statement "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." do not necessarily believe that Bush should be impeached. They only think it should be considered. That might be why when a more direct question is asked "Should President Bush be Impeached and Removed from Office?" only 32% say Yes as compared to 58% No link here. So I would say Milbank was correct when he depicted impeachment advocates as a fringe element (although 32% is still a very high fringe)..

2) That statement is a conditional probability statement which beings "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons...." Thus, for the conclusion to be reached (impeachment considered...NOT impeachment definitely happening), the first part of that statement must be true. As of yet, I have not seen any evidence which showed that Bush definitively knew beyond a reasonable doubt beforehand that Iraq did not possess any WMD's or did not have the intent to acquire WMD's.

3) Regarding the poll for considering impeachment regarding warrantless wiretaps on Americans, re-read #1. The poll has the same faulty wording "consider impeachment" and gives the impression of wiretapping between two average American citizens, whereas most (if not all) wiretapping was done with 1 American citizen and 1 Al-Qaeda representative (assuming 2 people on the phone call).

Eric Alterman tees one up-Part 2

2006-02-20T13:49:00.000-05:00

***Continuation from last post***

3) "When spokespeople for the shows were contacted to explain the disparity, they claimed that they go where the action is, and today the action is Republican/conservative......But of course, were that true, then the Clinton years would have been just as tilted in favor of Democrats/progressives as the Bush years have been toward Republicans/conservatives."

This should be true during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency. But after Republicans gain control of the House + Senate for the first time in 40 years (during Clinton's last 6 years in office), why would the action be in the Democrats corner?? It would seem to be in both corners, which, suprisingly (actually not), is what the study reflected 52%-48%.

4) "deeply right-wing George Will, and the "neutral" (though personally conservative) Fareed Zakaria, with no balance whatsoever."

Perhaps you want to edit this comment after yesterday's This Week. Katrina Vanden Heuvel was in full liberal attack mode and was a panelist along with Cokie Roberts, and George Will. Yes, no balance whatsoever. I'm sure she will never be invited back on after her disgraceful performance (how many times do someone need to say lied and WMD in the same sentence 3 years after the fact??), but for that show it was balanced. Also, George Will might be "deeply right-wing" compared to you and Katrina, but he is not compared to most American people (i.e. people outside of NY & LA).

5) "...Mrs. Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell--were classified as "neutral." (Remember how quick Mitchell was during the 2004 debates to accuse Kerry of "demagoguery" for daring to criticize her husband?) "

Seriously, how many examples do you need that Andrea Mitchell is not conservative (which you are claiming). I'm not trying to prove that she is liberal (despite many liberal episodes), but she is by no means a "conservative".

example 1) From Hardball 2/6/2006:

Mitchell: "Well, I think they’re trying to demonize her. I think they are trying to take advantage of the fact that she can sometimes sound shrill, as she did in front of that audience in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day and try to make her seem more extreme than I think she really is, because I think, look at what she’s just done recently, she took some PAC money from her own political action committee and gave it to Bob Casey in Pennsylvania who is an anti-choice nominee in the Democratic race there."

What conservative uses the term "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life"

example 2) Feb 8, 2006 NBC Nightly News

Mitchell: "It was an in-your-face rebuke rare for any President, especially one who doesn't often surround himself with critics...After five years in office, deep cuts in social programs, and searing criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush is still struggling to explain himself to African-Americans....critics, often Democrats, remember that he has not attended an NAACP convention since taking office."

First, there have not been deep cuts or any cuts in social programs since George W Bush took office. Anti-poverty programs have increased 39% from $285 billion to $396 billion from 2001 to 2005. Second, the reason he hasn't attended an NAACP convention is because they put a disgusting ad about him up during the 2000 election, and the Chairman Julian Bond has said the following things about Bush/Republicans "idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side-by-side" and "Republicans draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics." Granted, I don't think Mitchell is advocating the critics positions that he has not attended a convention, but she doesn't mention any reasons why he hasn't (which are obvious). **** the next 2 sentences were not in the original email, but were added to post to make the preceeding paragraph clearer Here she shows that is willing to use false and misleading Democratic arguments in a position where she is supposed to be neutral. Is that what a Conservative usually does?

6) Tune in to every show every week for a year, and you are unlikely to see Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Rick Hertzberg, Harold Meyerson or anyone associated with The Nation, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The New York Review of Books, Salon, In These Times, Mother Jones or even the liberal remnant inside The New Republic.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel was on This Week yesterday so there is someone from The Nation. Krugman was on MTP once in 2005, Maureen Dowd was on twice in 2005 and once in 2006, Frank Rich was on once in 2005. As for the other guys, no one has ever heard of them, that's why they aren't invited on. Also, Frank Rich isn't even a political columnist, he's an art & culture columnist. Why should he be on political talk shows frequently or at all?

***name ommitted in post****

P.S. Do you support the requirement of address/phone # for letter to the editor publication?

The Nation & Hypocrisy

2006-02-20T13:29:00.000-05:00

Regarding the Eric Alterman article which I will talk about below, I wanted to send a letter to the editor to The Nation magazine. If you would like to do that, one goes to the form. They require your address, and phone number. Interesting...I thought these were the people who complained about the Patriot Act being too intrusive and about Civil Liberties being infringed upon. They don't want the government to be able to see what books you are checking out from government funded libraries (Hey Katrina & Eric, you guys should actually be in support of this---then you'll know someone might actually be reading your pathetic attack books), but they have no problem asking for enough information to positively identify you and find out where you live in order for you to submit a letter to the editor (not even guaranteeing it will be published). Can you say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

Katrina VH on This Week-2.19.06

2006-02-20T13:24:00.000-05:00

In case you haven't seen a rabid dog thirsty for blood lately, I suggest you check our yesterday's This Week with George Stephanopolous. Check out the audio file and go in 24:30 and listen to the roundtable discussion. Katrina Vanden Heuvel comes out swinging from the start and the only thing missing by the end of the interview is the frothing at her mouth (well I imagined it was there as I listed to the audio file). More to be posted later on her exact comments and a dissection of them.

Eric Alterman tees one up

2006-02-20T13:21:00.000-05:00

It's not supposed to be this easy, but Eric Alterman just set it up perfectly for us with his latest column. Yea, Yea, I know, it's not a MMFA piece, but he was writing about one of their studies and he falls under the moonbat category so I decided to respond to his article. Below is a copy of the email I sent to him regarding his article about this MMFA study I will break it into two parts because it is so long...but it was sent as 1 email.

Part 1:
Eric,

I just read your article (yes I know it doesn't come out in print for another 2 weeks)...but I just had to respond to a couple of points made in it. ***in here, I had 5-6 lines about the Nation's address/phone number requirement, etc...removed from this post because addressed in another post***

1) "The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left."

Would seem to make sense. Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House but a Democrat controlled the White House. Thus, it would seem logical that guests were pretty much split 50-50 between the two groups. Agree?

2) "But in Bush's first term, Republicans/conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005 the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent."

Hmm...maybe that was because Republicans controlled all three branches of government (except for the time from May 2001 to Jan 2003--when new members were sworn in after Nov 2002 elections). During that time period Democrats held a slim margin in the Senate but Republicans had the other two brances. So wouldn't it make sense that there would be more Republicans interviewed because they are the people in power proposing and passing legislation?? Secondly, the reason there aren't that many progressives/Democrats invited on the Sunday shosws is because when they are they refuse to present their own ideas to change America. All they do is attack Bush/Republicans. See the following examples

example 1----Howard Dean on MTP 11/13/2005

DR. DEAN: We have an alternative agenda. We made it very clear. We want a strong national security based on telling the truth to our people at home, our soldiers and our allies. We want jobs in America that'll stay in America, and we believe that renewable energy is one of the areas where we can do that. We want a health-care system that covers everybody, just like 36 other countries in the world. We want a strong public education system. And most of all, we want honesty back in government. I think that's a pretty good agenda.

MR. RUSSERT: But those are words that will appeal to people. But when you go behind them, for example, what is the Democratic position on Iraq? Should we withdraw troops now? What do the Democrats stand for?

DR. DEAN: Tim, first of all, we don't control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the '06 elections.

MR. RUSSERT: But there's no Democratic plan on Social Security. There's no Democratic plan on the deficit problem. There's no specifics. They say, "Well, we want a strong Social Security. We want to reduce the deficit. We want health care for everyone," but there's no plan how to pay for it.

DR. DEAN: Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It's our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America. And that's what we're going to do. We're doing our best. Look at the trouble they're having putting together a budget. Why is that? Because there's still a few moderate Republicans left who don't think it's OK to cut school lunch programs, who don't think it's OK to do some of the appalling things that they're doing in their budget. I saw a show last night which showed a young African-American man in California at the UC of Davis who hoped to go to law school. The Republicans want to cut $14 billion out of higher education so this kid can't go to law school. We're going to do better than that, and together, America can do better than that.

MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."

DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.

MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?

DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT: This year?

DR. DEAN: In 2006.

example 2) Rahm Emanuel on MTP Jan 16, 2005

MR. RUSSERT: We do know that life expectancy has gone from 65 to 80, so that 80 million people will be on Social Security for 15 to 20 years. Will the Democrats come forward with a specific plan to save Social Security and what will it encompass?

REP. EMANUEL: Yeah. What the Democrats will do is we stand ready to work on the retirement security. I've laid out here just briefly some of the things we are going to deal with helping people establish a retirement plan for themselves in addition to Social Security.

MR. RUSSERT: No, but specifics.

REP. EMANUEL: All right.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go through a checklist.

REP. EMANUEL: All right.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you consider raising the retirement age?

REP. EMANUEL: Tim, I'm not going to sit here and negotiate it. To quote...

MR. RUSSERT: But why won't the Democrats or the Republicans level with the American people?

REP. EMANUEL: Well, no, we will. Well, first of all, Tim, you talk about leveling with the American people, as you just said, Social Security right now is--in 2042 we face the challenge. He wants to use the word crisis. I think when 80 percent of the workers who work at small businesses have no retirement plan, that to me has an immediacy that uses the word "crisis." When literally nearly 40 percent of the households, 27 million households, have no retirement plan outside of Social Security, that has an immediacy to me. We stand ready to work on that. On the notion of Social Security, on the notion that when you blow all the smoke away, we're talking about raising--borrowing another $2 trillion, cutting benefits up to 40 percent...

MR. RUSSERT: What is your alternative?

REP. EMANUEL: Well, the alternative, as you well know, is we work here, we have an alternative as it relates to retirement plans and helping people develop retirement plans on top of Social Security. I will not tell you what we don't do, and as you know on this show, Tim, and you're smart to what happens in this town, the president proposes and Congress disposes, he'll come forward with his plan. We'll work from there. We stand ready to help strengthen people's retirement security...

So to return to my original question? Why should progressives/Democrats be invited on political talkshows when they refuse to give specific ideas about what they would do differently???

***Read on for Part 2

From the Beginning

2006-02-20T10:55:00.000-05:00

Somehow you have found this webpage and if you couldn't figure out what the purpose of it is from the mission statement above, I will explain it a little bit further. Media Matters For America (MMFA) is an organization run by admitted liar David Brock which purports to expose conservative lies, misinformation, and propaganda. In the beginning MMFA played it fairly straight generally only dealing with facts (both numerical and historical). However, as the months progressed they began to delve more into attacking opinions and people personally. As the progression continued, the attacks became more dishonest and misleading. Finally, the other day I got annoyed enough to go about creating a website to document their half-truths, misleading arguments, distortions, and lies. While this will be the main subject of this site, there will also be posts regarding other Democratic (or Republican) pundits/politicians/journalists, and eventually a small section explaining what exactly I stand for and believe in. Because let's face it, one of the major criticism of the Democrats is their inability to state what they believe in as compared to saying what they are opposed to. And this site runs the risk of falling into the same trap as I am constantly dissecting and attacking MMFA's false analyses. The site will be slowly updated at first since school is still in session until the end of May, but postings should pick up over the summer. So if you're ready to join me on this wild ride...give me a loud, rousing, YYYAAAAAAHHHHHHHH