Megyn! Megyn! Megyn! Further Praise for the Queen of News

Glenn Greenwald is one of my most-admired reporters on the left, long before any of the Snowden stuff ever came out.

Just reading about his respect for one of my favorite commentators on the right, Megyn Kelly, as seen in this article.

“She has a lower tolerance for being fed incoherent tripe from her own side than the average cable news TV host,” Greenwald said in an email. “Most Fox and MSNBC hosts treat even the most blatant idiocy with respect if it advances their party’s political agenda for the vapid cable news partisan controversy of the day. Kelly, by contrast, seems to be often contemptuous of incoherent blather even from her own side, sometimes openly so, and that further distinguishes her.”


From Trey Gowdy, who ripped into the media for their lax investigative journalism into Benghazi:

“I think you always bolster your credibility when you show objectivity and when you are an equal opportunity questioner … No one is your client, you’re not protecting anyone. Obviously, when you’re attractive, you can get away with things that ugly people like me can’t get away with.”

Leaving no doubt who’s in charge, Kelly steers the interviews to make news, quickly calling out guests for being “boring” or cutting them off if she deems their answers not clear enough for the average viewer.

A collage of her greatest hits here:


“Get over” Benghazi already? How about “Get Under” the Spin and Stop Forgetting That There Are Victims

The often (if not exclusively) left-leaning blog Slate surprisingly had this to say about Beghazi:

“The Obama administration’s story has never been straight on the Benghazi attack. Press Secretary Jay Carney once said the White House and State Department had only been involved in changing one word in crafting the first public response about the attack—the infamous Susan Rice talking points. Emails released in May showed that wasn’t the case. This new batch underscores the White House’s involvement in shaping the story. The Obama administration left the impression that everything related to the Benghazi attack had been released to the investigating committees months ago. That is also clearly false. There have been other instances where the White House line on Benghazi has also earned it Pinocchios.”

I’ve heard a bunch of “yah butts” from the left on this, such as “it wasn’t an embassy it was a CIA outpost” as though the quesiton was why it was attacked, or that attacking it was somehow OK (and guess what, all embassies are intelligence outposts, genius!)

I’ve also heard a bunch of attempted misdirects, such as “We have bigger problems to solve!” and “And what about Bush and the thousands that died on home soil under his watch?” to downright freakouts like we see here and here.  (Proving my belief once again that “fair share” liberals are hypocrites who prefer to drown/shout out free speech that doesn’t agree with them).

I’ll be the first to admit that the political and intelligence failures under Bush regarding that fateful day in September are far greater than Benghazi, and that administration’s cover up just as Bush Administration did with the “August memo” are just as bad if not worse.  Fact is they came out and said we had no prior warning and they also said that no one had thought they would use planes as missiles in spite tons of evidence to the contrary.  Watch 9/11 “Press for Truth” to see it, and the many questions that remained unanswered.

The families of the victims of any disaster the government is involved in deserves answers, and I can fully understand their frustration and anger when all they get when they ask for those answers is political spin.  The other victim to this, however, is Democracy.  As citizen voters we’re not supposed to be allowing these cover-ups no matter which Administration is creating them.

Secrecy is one thing – lying and then covering it up just to save political ass or some higher-ups job is another. 

And why is a supposedly “free press” allowing it to pass either way – whether Democrat or Republican?  How is it that The Turk or a Bob Beckell can get so irate over the mere mention of it when the truth still remains hidden and questions still remain unanswered?  Because they’re so hypervigilant and emotionally involved with their party they feel losing anything risks losing everything they stand for, I believe, and from a democracy perspective that’s a very risky position for a “free press” to be in, don’t you think?

The victims’ families of Benghazi still deserve answers to their questions.  Let’s not deny their right to them simply because we’re afraid to score a “win” for the other political side.




Fox News, Food Stamps, and Why I Love John Stewart (And Occasionally Liberals)

In a debate over at a friend’s blog, I commented that Fox News occasionally brings up issues that the liberal networks refuse to report on.  Wade Rathke’s embezzlement of ACORN, Benghazi, and “Surfer Dude” – the loser sponging off the food stamp (SNAP) system are such examples.  The last particularly hits home for me as I deal with SNAP spongers on a monthly basis.

In my criticism of Liberal viewpoints, one has been that liberals never seem to attack any of their own on their blogs.  Obama and Democrats never lie, MSNBC never ignores facts, and groups like ACORN are totally angelic and can do no wrong.

Are Convservatives just as guilty?  I don’t think to the same extent, but regardless, as a right-leaning guy let me post here criticizing FOX News and what I think is their ridiculous position on SNAP abuse which I think John Stewart nails in his commentary 110%.

Stewart Rebuttal for US Viewers

Stewart Rebuttal for Canadian Viewers

FNC won’t report that SNAP fraud is way down in the past five years, or that much of the “abuse” comes down to bureaucratic mistakes.  They also won’t suggest any reasonable solution that solves the short-term needs of a family that truly needs SNAP assistance.  Instead, they’ll point out that “96% of the poor have refrigerators” and compare our poor to those of 3rd world countries, saying “it’s not so bad” and then take a hypocritical view on corporate welfare vs. individual welfare.

Liberals still, on the other hand, take what I think are foolish and hypocritical positions on many other important issues, but on this one I think their attack on FOX News is bang on.  Have a look and see for yourself.

The Benghazi Coverup – The Most Disgusting Political Act I’ve Seen In a While

Looks like there’s news that the government did in fact know that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and while the CIA was trying to beef up security, the State Department (under Hillary) wasn’t.

Why not?  It appears “politics” was the motive, here – the Dems were up for re-election and “We defeated Al Qaeda” was their rallying cry on foreign policy.

Consider also Gates’ statements about how politics factored into military decisions, and Hillary’s “What difference does it make?” b.s., plus her two planted appointees to the head of the investigative committee.

Four American lives were lost for what can only seem to be political reasons, but hey, let’s focus on a bridge.

The Weekly Standard Article on Global Warming

Reading an interesting article on Richard Lindzen, MIT’s climate scientist that the article says the IPCC, Gore, and climate “alarmists” love to hate.

Yes, I get that The Weekly Standard is a conservative magazine – and I get the jabs at the alarmists in the article with statements such as “Carbon dioxide, it may be needless to point out, is not a poison. On the contrary, it is necessary for plant life” – but the article deserves objective reading by those on the other side of the issue as well.

Why, to try and convince alarmists that there’s nothing wrong?  No, and I don’t think the article’s trying to say that either.  The reason, then, would be to come at the discussion from a more balanced point of view.

Not ready to follow my own advice, however, here’s how my view is skewed:

1) Regardless of whether man-made pollution is warming the planet, there’s still the issue of man-made pollution which is destroying the planet.  If people can now light the water from their faucets on fire after a fracking crew has worked close by, that’s a problem.

2) Why not focus on reducing pollution anyways rather than creating an issue over something that is still heavily debated?  Watching extremists on both sides argue about man-made global warming is like watching two seagulls fighting over a french fry, in my opinion.  Why not drop it and pick something self-serving that you both can agree on?

3) How much money alarmists get from the government is still not a figure easy to find.  Why?  Why can’t we see how much money is out there for warming alarmists vs. warming deniers, and…

4) Who’s actually denying climate change or global warming, anyways?  According to the article, hardly any of the scientists are.

“Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. “We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,” he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by “a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree [Celsius]. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”

The PC Police Allowing Enemies To Thrive Under Our Noses?

I recently watched Jihad In America: The Grand Deception on SunTV in Canada (Canada’s poorly-funded equivalent of FOX News.)

I have to admit, it bothered me. Not from a “fear Muslims” or “Fear Islam” perspective (I don’t fear Muslims), but from the perspective of our overly-political-correct, naive society this film is being shown in.

There’s people who will automatically dismiss this film as fear-mongering, right-wing propaganda, or even “hate speech”. Mostly, this will come from the “fair share” liberals who, hypocritically, will flat-out refuse to even consider the evidence of this film.

Here’s the thing, however: anyone who watches it can go to any number of sources on the web to view it, or its presenters’, criticisms, but the fact is they are paper thin when put in contrast to the actual evidence presented in this film.

After watching this film, the first thing I did was go to Media Matters, and to the Wikipedia entries of people like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser that bears a number of criticisms of their views and public statements. For instance, from Jasser’s Wikipedia page:

“Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to the US Congress, has been highly critical of Jasser. In a debate, Ellison told Jasser, “I think you give people license for bigotry. I think people who want to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating really love you a lot because you give them freedom to do that. You say, ‘yeah, go get after them’.[39]

An article in the liberal[41][42] media watchdog group Media Matters for America criticized Jasser’s alleged lack of credentials and his “right-wing rhetoric.”[43] Further, self-described conservative[44]“

A full attack on his credibility is here: and here.

Not stopping there, you can then find a retort to here, from The Daily Kos (of all places!)

There’s enough back-and-forth to make a person’s head spin, but this, I believe, takes us seriously off-point, and that is the very well-investigated and well-documented point made in the documentary that there is a radical Islamic Agenda at play here in America.

Note in the detractions against Dr. Jasser, Steven Emerson, and others in the Investigative Project on Terrorism there is nothing, really, but ad-homenem attacks. I think some of Emerson’s fears are far-fetched, I think Geller is more of a publicity hound, but nevertheless – one has to recognize that my criticisms are that of their opinions and conculsions of the evidence, and that even without these players in the picture the evidence making the IPOT’s case on the radical islamic threat inside America indeed stands on its own.

Just as we must make sure we don’t automatically paint an entire people with a brush based upon the actions of a few people we must also be sure not to give a group who intimidates, threatens, and even kills over a cartoon are not being given a free pass in our country and using our acceptance against us. Innocent Muslims, and innocent people anywhere in America, are owed that much for simple sake of their own safety.

Watch the video, watch the news clips. Watch these people who are talking “peace” in front of the cameras are talking violence on the other once they think the cameras and mics are off. Listen to the law enforcement agents (on both sides of the issue), and view the unclassified documents and memos for yourself and of course, check out the opinions both for and against. Tell me what you think – whose arguments are more paper-thin?

Form your own opinion either way, but please let’s not default to political correctness on this issue when it can very literally mean thousands and thousands of innocent American lives being lost due to ignorance and naivity.

Solilquy on Treyvon – Repost from


“From the stack.

The societal impact of the Martin-Zimmerman trial:

People are using Trayvon Martin’s death as an excuse to project their own deep-seated issues with racism and will not be capable of intelligent, empathetic debate until they’ve cooled down and afforded themselves an education.

Addressing Trayvon without first addressing the absence of critical thinking in our schools, the lack of introspection, the reasons for our low tolerance and our country’s skewed value system does nothing more than create a sounding board for the ignorant. So rather than facilitate more racism outcry, I’d like to address young black people specifically.

I believe we lost that trial for Trayvon long before he was killed. Trayvon was doomed the moment ignorance became synonymous with young black America . We lost that case by using media outlets (music, movies, social media, etc.) as vehicles to perpetuate the same negative images and social issues that destroyed the black community in the first place. When we went on record glorifying violent crime and when we voted for a president we never thought to hold accountable. When we signed on to do reality shows that fed into the media’s stereotypes of black men, we ingrained an image of Trayvon Martin so overwhelming that who he actually may have been didn’t matter anymore.

Don’t you find it peculiar that the same media outlets who have worked so diligently to galvanize the negative stigmas of black men in America are now airing open debates on improving the image of black males in American media? Do you honestly think CNN is using their competitive time slots for philanthropy?

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” – Rahm Emanuel

People respond to perceptions. And when perceptions are put out there in a specific manner, it should surprise no one that people will react predictably.

Romany’s prescription?

If we really wanted to ensure Trayvon Martin’s killing was not in vain, we’d stop perpetuating negative images that are now synonymous with black men in America. We’d stop rapping about selling drugs and killing niggas. The next time we saw a man beating a woman, we’d call for help or break it up, but one thing we would not do is stand by with our cellphones out — yelling WORLDSTAR! Instead of rewarding kids for memorization, we’d reward them for independent and critical thinking.

We’d spend less time subconsciously repeating lyrics about death and murder and more time understanding why we are so willing to twerk to songs that bemean women and boast of having things we cannot afford. We’d set examples of self-love for our youth by honoring our own hair, skin and eye color. We’d stop spending money on designer gear that we should be spending on our physical and psychological health. We’d seek information outside the corporate owned-media that manipulates us. We’d stop letting television babysit our kids and we’d quit regurgitating pundits we haven’t come up with on our own.

Education, introspection, self-love and excellence are the only ways to overcome the wrath of ignorance. So before going back to popping molly and getting Turnt Up, I urge you to consider the implications of your actions. Your child’s life may depend on it.


Benghazi Memos – The Democrat’s Straw Man

Watching the recent Bill Maher “Real Time” episode (May 10th, 2013) where Maher complains, “Tell me what the scandal is? Nobody’s telling me.” He gets told by BOTH Glen Greenwald (from the left) and Charles Cooke (on the right) that the Benghazi issue IS serious. Below:

Then a third guest chimes in with “No, the scandal is about a memo and 12 points that it’s been reduced to.”

Um, no. Democrat supporters want to make this out to be a non-issue about some memo. That, to me, is a pathetic cop-out. Personally, I don’t think they should be allowed to trivialize this matter because an American Ambassador and three other American soldiers are dead, and on that basis alone this should be given the proper NONPARTISAN attention that it deserves. Both Greenwald and Cooke make that case well from their respective sides.

For me, here’s how I see the ISSUE:
1) An Embassy in a country where America had just helped overthrow a dictator, which happened to reside in a hotbed of radical anti-Americanism was left horribly undefended. Why?
2) More security was asked for on a number of occasions and was turned down. (refused?) Why?
3) During the attack, American solders off-duty chose to stay behind and defend the embassy, to their peril. The fact that 1) and 2) have yet to be clearly and honestly answered is a disgrace so far to their service and their memory. The soldiers had the guts put their ass on the line over this, so should our politicians.
4) Immediately, the White House called the attack one that was caused by an American-made anti-Muslim video, yet at the time it appears that both the CIA and the State Department knew this was – at the very least – not entirely the case, if even the case at all.Why push that story line so hard and deliberately exclude terrorism from the narrative?
5) The White House claimed that they called this an “act of terror” from the beginning. Not true. Neither Obama, Clinton, nor Rice ever clearly and directly stated that it was. The Washington Post effectively debunks Obama’s claim here, giving it ‘four Pinnochios’ on the liar’s scale. Every word is chosen very carefully in politics. To not call it a terrorist attack directly was calculated and deliberate.
6) Secretary of State Clinton appoints two people (a retired general and former ambassador) to investigate. Neither ask Clinton what she knew, or when she knew it. Stacking the deck of a committee is old news in politics. The Warren Commission and The 9/11 Commission quickly come to mind. With the 9/11 Commission, interviews of Bush were practically non-existent, too. If everyone’s so ‘innocent’, then why a political move like that regarding the Committee in this case?
7) Months later, whistleblowers come forward and claim that the White House gave “stand down” orders around the time of the attack.
8) Months later, ABC News discovers internal documents that show that the talking points had been altered and that the CIA without a doubt considered the attack to be a terrorist attack, although they were reluctant to specify yet by whom.So why not say it was, but we don’t know yet by whom or why?
9) Claims are being repeated by the left that Obama and Clinton did all they could during the attack, that they couldn’t get anybody there to help fast enough. Fine, but this cleverly and wholeheartedly dodges the question of why the Embassy was so inadequately protected to begin with. And how does a supposedly ‘lower-level staffer’ get to give stand-down orders?
10) The elephant in the room here that the Mahers and Maddows and and the left (or at least Democrats) don’t want to acknowledge is that the Obama campaign benefited from a “it was a video” story as opposed to an “it was a terrorist attack” story being right before an election when Romney was still viewed as a serious contender.

Remember that prior to the slapdown Romney got on Benghazi by a supposed-to-be-impartial-but-clearly pro-Obama moderator during the debate, he had been leading after walloping Obama in the first debate. Obama’s best card against Romney was thought to be on foreign policy, where the “Osama Bin Laden is dead” line would show that 1) the country was safer, 2) Al Qaeda had been wiped out, and 3) Obama could be, and is, tough on terror. Benghazi would have been VERY strong evidence against all three claims. Imagine it being found out right before an election that there was a stand-down order in Libya causing the deaths of four Americans?

*** Update:
11) Harry Reid gets on TV yesterday and says that the Republicans are concerned more about scoring political points against Obama and Hillary than they are about keeping our embassy’s safe and finding out what happened.

Really, Harry Reid? This, to me, is just more proof of 10) above. Thanks to the Democrats, we STILL don’t know who exactly said a) stand down, and b) go with these talking points. Thanks to the Democrats, we had Hillary saying “Who cares how it happened?” months ago and Jay Carney saying, “It’s old news” recently up until ABC News came out with the original memos.

What I don’t like is that everyone in the Democratic Party (not even everyone on the left) is saying, “Forget about it, it’s a non-issue. What happened, happened” and yet they’re all stonewalling us on what exactly happened. I’ll go one further and state for the record that I think the AP thing and the IRS thing are deliberately-timed diversions to keep Benghazi from being the main focus of the news cycles right now. I think this Administration is hoping that the people and the press quit asking, which for the longest time they’ve been able to count on. Not this time – American lives have been lost.

I don’t care if it’s Democrat or Republican, there is proof here that the government LIED, and not only lied but tried to cover it up in the beginning and is still trying to cover it up now. Governments lie – it’s part of their job – but for the press to be asleep on this for five months is inexcusable, as is Government dodging serious questions after-the-fact now.

A b.s. story about why four Americans died, and possibly a stand-down order from the Government that led to the cause of both that the Government keeps trying to wiggle out of in some fashion. That’s not the “transparent and accountable” government that anyone voted for, and in the case of American lives, that behavior to me is inexcusable and we need to get to the bottom of it no matter what the political cost. When even far-left writers like Greenwald seem to agree, that’s saying something.

Up until the memos were found, the press wanted to give Democrats yet again another free pass, but now in the guise of appearing impartial, they’re becoming journalists again and trying to get to the whole truth now that ABC has effectively ‘given them permission’. I’m glad they are, and hope they don’t stop until they get there because I’m sick of the response from the “Democrats can do no wrong”/MSNBC’s of the world that are acting like Maher did when being proved wrong – after being beaten on all fronts with the 10 points above, he simply redirects with an “I’m bored with this already,” and moves on, surely unmoved from his original partisan position.

I don’t consider this a “scandal”, and won’t until the questions I have in the list above are answered. For now, however, I think this is a serious issue that everyone (including ALL of the press) should recognize.

Ezra Levant Guilty of a Michael Moore-like Spin Job In Calling David Suzuki a Sexist

Watched a bit of Sun News channel the other day and caught Ezra Levant doing a piece on David Suzuki. Seeing as how Suzuki is a staunch liberal and environmentalist I could see Sun News being aligned against him, but what I saw from Levant was particularly interesting: there was a point where Levant highlighted a letter from one of Suzuki’s staff saying that he preferred women to accompany him at events rather than male security guards. Why according to the staffer? “Well he is a male”, says the staffer.

Check out the letter at about 2:00 in below:

This seems to be the basis for Levant ripping into Suzuki and Sun News commentators saying making sexist comments that he wants “what every man wants”, yet when you look at what the staffer wrote immediately after the highlight, to me it paints Suzuki in a completely different light.

First of all, right after the “Well he is a male” comment, the staffer says, “No, seriously, I believe it is his way of being discreet and less intimidating.” Fair point, in my opinion, and point to Suzuki.

Second, the staffer then asks for “2-3 female Police Tech students” with “maturity and professionalism”. Fair point again, and point to Suzuki.

Third, nowhere does Suzuki’s staffer ask for “beautiful” women. That part was added by Sun News commentators themselves. Point Suzuki.

I’m not a huge fan of Suzuki, but this was a false, classless, and undeserved smear job against him in my opinion by Levant and Sun News. I like what Levant did with the bogus hunger strike by Aboriginal Chief Spense, but this bogus smear job on Suzuki seriously undermines his credibility and that of the network.

ANY network should know better and do better.

Oh, btw – what do I mean by “Michael Moore spin job”? Moore disingenuously uses segments of peoples’ quotes to fit his editorial slant (yes, liberals, just like Fox News and Breitbart did with the Shirley Sherrod video! Not right from either side.)

The Occupiers Can Stop Crying About Their Media Coverage: Early Media Portrayal of the Tea Party

I posted this in a reply to a comment made over at Reflections of a Rational Republican.

One of the matters being discussed was the media coverage of the Tea Party vs. the media coverage of Occupy. I did a quick Google search and these are a few clips that I found:

1) CNN’s coverage of the Tax Protest: “Right wing, not kid friendly”

2) Cenk Ugyur criticizing the Tea Party for being “convinced that radicalism is the answer”. Same criticism of Occupy? Also, check out 4:14 where his guest offers something that no one in Occupy has been able to offer: an explanation of their raison d’etre and their goal.

3) Greg Gutfeld and crew on Fox News’ “Red Eye” criticizing the media’s (over)use of the phrase “Tea Bagging” and then, in a move that the left never seems to do, actually criticizing a movement that ideologically, Fox News would surely support. The panel starts to make fun of the Tea Partiers themselves, even questioning their validity as a movement. This never happens in the left’s “can do no wrong” bubble.

4) Probably the worst example of “race bait” reporting EVER, here’s the infamous clip from MSNBC where they deliberately cropped a shot of a black man with an AR-15 rifle at the President’s rally just so they could make it a piece on racism:

5) Finally, here’s a video of where Ed Schultz’s rants of his Tea Party perception are contradicted to much of the reality that had occurred within the Tea Party’s protests.

I have to say that I had forgotten how bad some of the coverage of the Tea Party was. The CNN piece was ridiculous, and MSNBC’s coverage from many of their commentators was, in my opinion, despicable.

The left has been crying over how poorly and unfairly the Occupiers have been covered by the media. Well they can cry me a river, and as they do, I’ll be even more reminded of how accurately the term “Occupussies” applies to them and their thin, “I live by a b.s. double-standard” skin. These videos show the fact that unless one considers being called a “flea bagging hippie” is worse than being called a racist or likened to a Timothy McVeigh, The Tea Party has had it worse by the media than any Occupiers have, so it’s time they just put their diapers back on.