Ann Coulter Returns To MSNBC! Coulter And O’Donnell Debate 2012 GOP Prospects

Mediaite.com:

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter made a triumphant return to a place few ever expected to see her in the near future, or at least hadn’t since the latest shakeup at the network: the 8 PM hour at MSNBC. In an exceedingly friendly conversation with host Lawrence O’Donnell, Coulter explained her CPAC thesis that only New Jersey governor Chris Christie was capable of toppling President Barack Obama in 2012 and defended the conservative movement from O’Donnell’s criticism.


Welcoming back her old colleague, O’Donnell began the interview by asking Coulter jokingly whether MSNBC still appeared on her resumé. “It’s the only network I’ve ever worked for,” she responded, tongue firmly in cheek. She then began to defend the point she made during her speech at CPAC once again, that only Gov. Christie was capable of defeating the incumbent president. O’Donnell tried to corner Coulter into calling former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney a “loser”– a term she had used before– but in these hostile waters chose to refrain from adopting. Instead she insisted that, while, as in 2008, she wasn’t a huge fan of anyone, “we have to run somebody, and it’s obviously got to be Chris Christie.” She noted that she did not 100% agree with him on everything, but that the points on which they disagreed, “we can talk him out of it,” and that while “we can change someone’s mind, you can’t inject IQ into a candidate.”


As for other individuals that may or may not run for president in 2012, she asserted that she didn’t perceive Sarah Palin as a viable candidate because, as it stands, “she sends out a Twitter on death panels and everyone reads about it,” giving her little incentive to attempt to run for president. As for everyone else? Well, “I don’t want to attack them” will have to suffice as an answer from Coulter, for now.

New York Times Editorializes for Justice Clarence Thomas to Talk More to Show He's Not Corrupt

Newsbusters.org:

A Friday New York Times editorial, “The Thomas Issue,” furthered the paper’s fevered crusade against Justice Clarence Thomas, piggybacking on Adam Liptak’s front-page Sunday story on the vital matter of Thomas’s failure to ask questions during Supreme Court oral argument.


The Times actually argued that Thomas should speak up more to ensure the public that he is open-minded, while claiming that Thomas's five-year “milestone” of silence (one first marked in the Times) “has stirred a wide conversation about his effectiveness as a justice.” Stirred up solely by the Times, by the available evidence.


When the Supreme Court hears arguments next week, it will mark the fifth anniversary of Justice Clarence Thomas’s silence during oral argument -- unless he chooses to re-enter the give-and-take. We hope he will.


This milestone has stirred a wide conversation about his effectiveness as a justice following another about his ethics. They are actually related. How Justice Thomas comports himself on the bench is a matter of ethics and effectiveness, simultaneously. His authority as a justice and the court’s as an institution are at issue.


The editorial repeated tired accusations from the left-wing Common Cause alleging Thomas's conflict of interest based on his wife’s lobbying and Thomas’s attendance at a political event sponsored by conservative philanthropists Charles and David Koch. Common Cause led a protest outside that event filled with racist and violent comments about Thomas that the paper has yet to acknowledge.


Then there was this hypocritical expression of concern:


Taking part in oral arguments would be good for the justice and the court. In a landmark article about judging, the scholar John Leubsdorf said a justice should abide by three principles: avoid basing a vote on personal considerations; avoid basing a vote on facts learned outside the case; and consider both sides’ arguments. Taking part in arguments is a way for Justice Thomas to convey that he honors the third principle. By engaging with lawyers for both sides in cases and showing open-mindedness in exchanges with them, he would show his dedication to the court’s impartiality and to its integrity as an institution.


As if the left-wing Times editorial page would respect Thomas any more if he did start to express himself.

Idiot Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Objects To Use Of "ObamaCare" On House Floor

Hot Air explains the typical liberal hypocrisy on this one:

Not the first time that this idiotic charge has been leveled, but it might be the first time that the idiocy has reached the floor of the House itself. To this day, I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of why “ObamaCare” is any more or less derogatory than “Bush tax cuts” or “Reaganomics.” Yes, granted, the term’s typically used by the law’s critics, but so what? “Reaganomics” has been used by liberals to try to draw a distinction between Reagan’s policies and sound economic theory, but the term itself is perfectly polite. “CrapCare” or “BoondoggleCare” or “We’llNeverPayForThisCare” would qualify as disparaging (and true!), but “ObamaCare”? If Debbie Wasserman-Schultz seriously finds that derogatory, it’s only because the law is now such a heavy albatross politically for the left that the mere act of reminding voters of its provenance feels like a low blow. Pathetic.

U.S. Unemployment Up To 10%

Don't believe the hype, some minor thing Barry ignored for almost two years is still giving a nation trouble:

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, hit 10.0% in mid-February -- up from 9.8% at the end of January.

The percentage of part-time workers who want full-time work worsened considerably in mid-February, increasing to 9.6% of the workforce from 9.1% in January.

Underemployment Surges in Mid-February
Underemployment, in which Gallup combines part-time workers wanting full-time work with the U.S. unemployment rate, surged in mid-February to 19.6% -- mostly as a result of the sharp increase in those working part time but wanting full-time work. Underemployment now stands at basically the same place as it did a year ago (19.8%).

Sarah Palin Mocks Michelle Obama

CNN.com:

Sarah Palin addressed a variety of issues Thursday at a gathering of business officials in Long Island, New York including her 2012 plans, first lady Michelle Obama, President Obama's proposed budget, the crisis in Egypt, and her feelings on the media.


Here's a snapshot of what she had to say:


On her 2012 ambitions:
"I am still thinking of leading this country. I am still thinking about it. I haven't made up my mind. We hired a chief of staff because Todd is getting tired of doing it for me."


When asked who else she might envision at the top of the GOP ticket Palin responded, "No one is more qualified to multi-tasking and doing all the things you need to do as a President than a woman."


She then began reciting from her resume, listing her experience as a mayor and running for Vice President.


"What I would look for in terms of character is someone who's been on the front lines, who understands how to administer, how to lead a team, how to run a business."


On Michelle Obama:
"No wonder Michelle Obama is telling people to breast feed their babies, because the price of milk is rising so high."


She then warned the dozens of reporters at her question and answer event, "That better not be the takeaway here."

LiberalJournalism Professor Nir Rosen Resigns After Insulting Sexual Assault Victim, CBS's Lara Logan

Another item you won't find on your liberal news stations or blogs:

Nir Rosen, one of the more rabidly left-wing foreign policy commentators out there has finally gotten some just desserts after he ridiculed CBS News correspondent Lara Logan after she was assaulted by a mob in Egypt. After learning the news of the attack on Logan, Rosen took to Twitter to ridicule her and in the process revealed his deep anti-Iraq war bias.


"Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson. Where was her buddy McCrystal," he wrote, apparently wishing that former U.S. general Stanley McCrystal and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper had been also sexually assaulted by a mob.


Rosen's disgusting comments got worse from there, even as the fellow at New York University’s Center on Law and Security attempted to rationalize his hatred. "Yes yes its wrong what happened to her. Of course. I don't support that. But, it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too."


That wasn't enough for Rosen who continued his ranting as he stated why Logan was the target of his hate-filled, sexist tirade: She was not sufficiently against the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. 

"Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger," Rosen tweeted.

Moments later, Rosen started to backpedal: "Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than [sic] I'm sorry."

Finally he admitted his error, albeit in a profane manner: "Ah f--- it, I apologize for being insensitive, it's always wrong, that's obvious, but I'm rolling my eyes at all the attention she will get." "As someone who's devoted his career to defending victims and supporting justice, I'm very ashamed for my insensitive and offensive comments."

Ann Coulter: Liberals Don’t Care About Blacks, Women Or Gays, They Just Want To Destroy The Family

Mediaite.com:

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter continued her “Draft Chris Christie for President” tour by appearing with Sean Hannity tonight and suggesting “I don’t care if he wants to run, his country needs him.” She also had a few comments about liberals and issued a warning to Hannity.


After arguing that the Republican party should be more welcoming of the gay community (so long as they don’t advocate for legalization of gay marriage), Coulter turned her focus to attacking liberals who she believed exploit gays and other groups in order to advance an entire different agenda. Coulter elaborated:


“Liberals have been using one special interest group after another for their attacks on the family . . . liberals don’t care about blacks, they don’t care about women, they don’t care about gays – they care about destroying the family so that you have one loyalty and that is to the state.”


Finally, Coulter reminded Hannity that in the last presidential election, he, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin all complained about the Republican candidates but did not clearly support any one of them. As a result, Coulter theorized, that was the reason why Republicans were stuck with Senator John McCain as the nominee. In order to avoid a similar bad outcome, Coulter scolded Hannity and said, “I’m not letting you do that this time, we’re picking the best candidate and we’re getting behind him.”

WaPo, Boston Globe, Others Laughably Trumpet Obama Budget's 'Deep' Cuts to 'Rein in Deficits'

NewsBusters.org:

With the unveiling of Obama's 2012 budget today, some newspapers around the country framed the $3.7 trillion proposal as a serious attempt to slash the federal deficit.


The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, the Daily Herald, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and the DC Express, couched the administration's massive budget as a fiscally responsible plan that makes "deep" and "big" cuts to "rein in deficits."


"Obama budget makes deep cuts, cautious trades," trumpeted the Post's A-1 headline, even though the federal government is expected to run a $1.1 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2012.


The Globe echoed the Post with an above-the-fold headline that could have been ripped out of a White House press release: "Deep cuts, chance of gains for state in Obama budget."


A hyperbolized Express headline read, "BURNED BY THE BUDGET." Express, a local DC paper owned by The Washington Post, attacked Obama's plan from the Left, lamenting that the proposed cuts would "spread the pain to just about every American."


In Obama's home state of Illinois, the Herald's sub-headline intoned, "Obama's big budget has some big cuts within it."


While the Herald at least admitted that its former state senator's proposed budget is "big," the Star-Telegram made the fatuous assertion that "Obama plan aims to rein in deficits" with only $90 billion in cuts to federal spending.


During the presidential press conference this afternoon, April Ryan, White House correspondent for American Urban Radio, cited the Congressional Black Caucus to rail against spending cuts, which she claims were tantamount to "rebuilding our economy on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans."


"It’s not good to make these types of cuts at a time of recession," lectured Ryan, who prefaced her critique by reminding Obama that he started his career as a "community organizer."


By the administration's own estimates, the country would have to borrow an additional $7.2 trillion through 2021. With such a bleak bottom line, it strains credulity to claim that Obama's budget blueprint calls for "deep," and "big" cuts that will "rein in" spending and "spread the pain to just about every American."

Bernie Goldberg: ‘Clinical Insanity’ For Bill Maher To Call O’Reilly’s Obama Interview Racist

Mediaite.com:

Bill O’Reilly finding something Bill Maher said distaste is not an awful surprise, but to deign it “unexpected” is certainly a new flavor of disapproval. Calling it “the lowest point of the far left” in recent memory, O’Reilly blasted Maher (and his guests on last week’s Real Time) for suggesting his interview with President Obama was racist, and regular Bernie Goldberg agreed: it was, he argued, “almost clinical insanity.”


“I never expected the interview to be labeled racist,” O’Reilly told his audience as he played a clip of the Real Time panel suggesting that the way O’Reilly asked the President if he knew about football had racial undertones. Goldberg agreed, arguing that “you’d have to be out of your mind to find racism in that interview” and, furthermore, that Maher’s argument that O’Reilly was disrespectful held no water given some of his previous remarks. “If you’re going to accuse someone of being disrespectful, you’d better come to the table with clean hands,” Goldberg argued, noting some of Maher’s insults against George W. Bush, including but not limited to “retarded child emperor.”


O’Reilly didn’t seem too concerned about Maher himself, though, or his audience. More specifically, he wanted to know what “the American audience’s reaction” was to such rhetoric, and whether that sort of dialogue was permissible in the eyes of many. “We live in a different America where we could say almost anything and get away with it,” Goldberg noted, though praised HBO for not censoring Maher. “HBO,” he explained (Goldberg is employed by HBO on the show Real Sports), had “never once tried to censor anything I’ve said, to their credit, and they’re certainly not going to try to censor Bill Maher.”


In addition to Maher, O’Reilly let out a bit of steam he had left from the segment before Goldberg on David Gregory asking Speaker of the House John Boehner about the birther movement. Goldberg understood the question to be an attempt at getting Boehner to say “these people are nuts,” but didn’t think the question was “crazy unfair.”

As always Goldberg did a great job here calling Maher's idiocy out, but I wish that Goldberg had brought up Bil Maher's real racist attack on Barry last year when he accused Barry of not being a "real Black President" due his handling of the BP spill. Like I've always said about Bill Maher, not only is he a major hypocrite, but a shallow prick with a serious Napolean complex.

White Liberal Group AlterNet Makes Racist Attack Against Black Conservative Herman Cain

Knowing what I know about professional journalism, this racist smear had to pass through at least a handful of hands before it got edited, approved and posted. But again, it's who they are:

While young conservatives chased out a white-supremacist recruiter from CPAC, it seemed that one site on the Left felt more comfortable with racist attacks. AlterNet, a site that proudly proclaims its “strong content” and “huge readership and reach,” offered its analysis of Herman Cain’s speech at CPAC by calling the former CEO of Godfather Pizza a “monkey in the window”:


In the immortal words of Megatron in Transformers: The Movie, Herman Cain’s speech at CPAC really is bad comedy. As you know, I find black garbage pail kids black conservatives fascinating not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters.


When race minstrelsy was America’s most popular form of mass entertainment, black actors would often have to pretend to be white men, who then in turn would put on the cork to play the role of the “black” coon, Sambo, or Jumping Jim Crow. Adding insult to injury, in a truly perverse and twisted example of the power of American white supremacy black vaudevillians would often pretend to be white in order to denigrate black people for the pleasures of the white gaze. …


In total, CPAC is a carnival and a roadshow for reactionary Conservatives. It is only fitting that in the great tradition of the freak show, the human zoo, the boardwalk, and the great midway world’s fairs of the 19th and 20th centuries, that there is a Borneo man, a Venus Hottentot or a tribe of cannibals from deepest darkest Africa or Papua New Guinea on display. For CPAC and the White Conservative imagination, Herman Cain and his black and brown kin are that featured attraction.


We always need a monkey in the window, for he/she reminds us of our humanity while simultaneously reinforcing a sense of our own superiority. Sadly, there are always folks who are willing to play that role because it pays so well.


Yes, well, I’m pretty sure that Cain is comfortable enough from his private-sector success to not need the supposed financial windfall of a CPAC appearance. His radio show may pay a decent salary — knowing what I do about regional radio, that’s a rather risky presumption — but it’s not exactly the kind of money that entices CEOs with proven rescue power out of the business world. Cain has been pretty clear about his passion for conservative politics, and his speech at CPAC — as well as at other venues — was powerful and moving.


Having had to follow him on stage at one event, I can personally attest to the sinking feeling that produces in speakers that have the unfortunate chance of that scheduling. Having spoken with Cain on a number of occasions, I can also attest to the fact that this man has no masters, white or otherwise. Herman sails by his own compass at all times, which is one of his most admirable qualities.


But just as with any political figure, Cain may not be everyone’s cup of tea, especially if one disagrees with his conservative stances. AlterNet doesn’t just attack his positions or his ideology, both of which are fair game, but attack him for the color of his skin and declares him inauthentic. In doing so, they make the same assumptions that Jamie Kelso makes and tried to propagate at CPAC, which is that a black man can’t decide for himself what kind of politics he likes, honestly and authentically.


John Hinderaker at Power Line saw this before I did, and notes that my friend Dana Loesch pushed back against AlterNet’s descent into race-baiting:


No, the author doesn’t at all take into consideration Cain’s individuality; in their sloppy logic they shows their cards: all black people must be Democrats thus, if Cain isn’t a Democrat, then he’s a captive conservative. The author insults Cain’s free will and shows once again exactly what progressives think of black Americans: pawns that must be told what to believe. Humans who lack the cognitive ability to make valid choices. Black Americans couldn’t –Cain couldn’t – possibly come to the realization of their conservatism alone! They must have been brainwashed! Because progressives don’t believe that black conservatives possess the ability to make such rational arguments, they, the progressives, must “save” them. And again, progressives insult black conservatives by insisting that they are victims of stupidity.


This is progressive compassion? The complete lack of regard for the beliefs and freedoms of black Americans? Alternet succeeded in showcasing a possible reason for Cain’s conservative beliefs with such an inane display of racist-fueled illogic. With such friends to black America as these, who needs enemies? Is this “New Tone?”


Cain released two statements over the last couple of days on his Facebook page:


Please join me in condemning AlterNet for their shameful behavior towards me and all black conservatives. Special thanks to my friends Niger Innis, Dana Loesch and Andrew Breitbart for standing with me. …


I am humbled by the outpouring support from friends and supporters across the country willing to stand with me to defend civil rights of ALL AMERICANS who love this country and believe in the power of the American Dream. May we never forget the dignity of the individual (which INCLUDES the freedom of thought) as the core of this great nation’s founding and as the calling of this great nation’s future.


AlterNet owes Cain an apology, and perhaps those publications who give “Chauncey deVega” a platform should reconsider their relationships with the writer.

Bill O’Reilly Panel Gets Fiery Over GOP Treatment Of Obama Muslim Conspiracists

Mediaite.com:

Two years into the Obama presidency, the issue of where he was born and what religion he follows somehow continues to be an issue for many on the far right, and now House Speaker John Boehner is coming under fire for telling NBC’s David Gregory that it’s “not my job” to dispel those rumors. Bill O’Reilly dedicated his regular panel with Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham tonight to the matter, railing passionately about why giving the matter airtime was destructive.


The trio, who usually get along quite well despite their regular disagreements, appeared testier than usual tonight from the get-go, with Williams firing the first shots and wondering why Gregory was being criticized when he wasn’t the first to bring the matter up– it was, he argued Brian Williams– and the Republicans appear unable to distance themselves from the birthers and those who believe the President is Muslim. O’Reilly argued that the question wasn’t in order because “I don’t think this has any traction at all” and that the fringe that believes such things don’t have an impact on policy. To that Williams countered that there were nine Congressmen trying to legislate based on those believes. “They’re pinheads,” O’Reilly retorted.


Ham came to the floor from a completely different direction, noting that the criticism of Speaker Boehner was illustrative of a “double standard” when Chris Matthews had called to see the President’s birth certificate and Bill Maher had noted he did not believe the President was Christian, but a secular humanist. Here Williams’ point applied more than O’Reilly’s, though the two did not intersect much– the problem, as Williams explained it, was the influence in Congress. Neither Matthews nor Maher have the kind of influence (or any, really) on Congress that Boehner has, nor are they elected. O’Reilly also continued to argue that the entire discussion did not matter, while Ham, in the process of O’Reilly rebutting her claims, appeared more impatient than usual, dramatically rolling her eyes while she waited to speak.


But while Ham was rolling her eyes and O’Reilly’s “straight talk” was somewhat elevated, the panel didn’t really lose their patience until Williams proposed that there was “coded language” in what the Speaker was saying, or at least in what he was refusing to condemn. At this point, O’Reilly cradled his forehead in rage and proceeded to insist, after six minutes of talking about it, that giving the issue any airtime was a complete waste. “The issue doesn’t matter,” he insisted, “it doesn’t matter. Sane, clear-thinking people understand that the President is not a Muslim and he wasn’t born in Indonesia or whatever they’re putting out there. So why does Meet the Press and NBC News take up valuable airtime to hammer a guy who has nothing to do with it?”


The discussion ended with O’Reilly telling Gregory off in the persona of Speaker Boehner, wondering why the Speaker hadn’t done the same. Not the most peaceful day on the ranch for this panel.

Bloomberg Businessweek Celebrates Valentine's Day Highlighting 'Genius' Behind Adultery Website

Websites like AshleyMadison.com really should sicken people:

Infidelity. Adultery. Those aren't exactly words that come on typical candy conversation hearts. Valentine's Day is after all a traditional holiday of love and romance, not of cheating and betrayal.

Yet, Bloomberg Businessweek used the holiday to highlight AshleyMadison.com a website that helps married people (7 out of 10 on the site are men) have affairs. The company's motto is "Life is short. Have an affair."

Like Ashley Madison, Bloomberg Businessweek must be counting on the idea that "sex sells." The magazine's offensively sexed-up cover design showed a woman's spread, fishnet-clad legs and was clearly an attempt to grab readers. On the newsstand copy those legs take up a little more than a quarter of the page, but an image on the BusinessWeek website shows a much larger image of legs taking up the entire cover.

Bloomberg Businessweek too sympathetically detailed the hurdles CEO Noel Biderman, the "lone genius­­-possibly evil and certainly entrepreneurial-behind Ashley Madison," has faced running such an "illicit" business including the difficulty of public relations for a company that helps people cheat and get away with it.

 

The magazine refused to take a stand for morality saying only that, "[Biderman] is running a budding empire built on an activity that most people would say is wrong."

Biderman complained about Fox's refusal to air an Ashley Madison Super Bowl commercial, Facebook's reluctance to accept their advertisements and investors' that have walked away because of what the company does.

The Diminished Relevance Of Media Matters: Fox News Insider Story Largely Ignored

The consequences of speaking to an echo chamber is you need more people (or in this case better "sources") in order for anyone to take you seriously:

Last Thursday, Media Matters published an extensive (and somewhat breathless) account from an anonymously sourced individual that was only identified as a former Fox News Insider. The report included lots of detail that alleged Fox News’ bias, with pithy quotes like “they’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news” and “stuff is just made up,” and was clearly intended as a scathing indictment of Media Matters’ mortal enemy, Fox News.


While the story made some ripples in like minded sites like Think Progress and The Young Turks, the story made barely any mention in mainstream news outlets, and ended up serving as a stark reminder of Media Matters’ growing irrelevance in the world of media criticism.


The report, written by Eric Boehlert, was likely seen by the progressive media watchdog group as a coup de grâce in their war against Fox News. The opening sentences give a clear indication of the direction, and point, of the article:


Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”


Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.


“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”


The story continues to explain the reasoning, process and evolution of how news and opinion intermingle on Fox News. But for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, the provocative article was almost entirely ignored by the mainstream media. When reached by Mediaite, Ari Rabin-Havt, Executive Vice President at Media Matters, claimed the impact of the article was significant.


“More than 200,000 people read the story on MediaMatters.org this in itself shows the broad interest in this story.”


Regardless of the actual numbers, imagine if this report had appeared on another site, such as Salon, Slate (or even, say Mediaite), there would likely have been some pick-up from various cable news outlets, websites, and newspapers.


Why would such a provocative and interesting piece get lost in shuffle? Perhaps because, in the current hyper-partisan landscape of opinion media (and watchdogs) it’s difficult to take seriously a post that alleges that “stuff is just made up” from a story that is unwilling to identify its source. Boehlert’s lack of a primary focus on journalism (versus agenda) undercuts the story as well as the fact that his sourcing narrative is often confusing (at one point, it seems as though he’s referencing two different sources), and he fails to negotiate an attribution that would help the reader judge its credibility. Was this an on-air personality? An intern? A producer? Did this source leave Fox recently? Based on Boehlert’s attribution, the source could be Keith Olbermann as far as the reader knows.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 2/14/11

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Mouths Lyrics To Songs, Talks On Phone

What's The Difference Between Accused Killers Jared Loughner And Kermit Gosnell?

Rep. Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll

Berkeley Officials Invite Guantanamo Bay Detainees To Live In City

AP Pushes Pro-Islam Entertainment Propaganda

Donald Trump At CPAC: 'Who Said I'm Pro-Choice?'

Push To De-fund Planned Parenthood Gaining Momentum

CNN Shows Muslim Brotherhood Member Defending Violence Against Israel

Speaker Boehner: "It's Not My Job To Tell" Americans That Obama Is Not A Muslim

George Soros, Nazi Obsessive

Rep. Ryan: Obama 2012 Budget Savings 'Paltry'

Donald Rumsfeld Opens Up About Mistakes In Iraq

Sarah Palin Crushes Time Magazine Over Their 'Lies'

Proof once again that there is no such thing as a "liberal media", none whatsoever:

Sarah Palin's recent email to Time Magazine Congressional Correspondent Jay Newton-Small started off congenial enough. The mood soon shifted dramatically when Gov. Palin attacked the magazine over the "total lies" that had been published about her. Included in her email is not only a call for a retraction of the false stories, but a demand for an apology to Fox News' Sean Hannity and Christina Aguilera who were both included in the story Time ran. The text of the email follows:


"Subject: Great job, MSM!


Jay - pls tell your bosses there at Time Magazine thank you for the invitations to attend the upcoming functions. I'll sure put a lot of thought into those invitations.


Then, have your editors retract Time's most recent ridiculous lies about me supposedly giving Sean Hannity a radio interview wherein I supposedly talked about Christina Aguilera (that I slammed her for her Nat'l Anthem mistake, and called for her deportation, etc). You guys were fooled into running a fake story that even US Weekly pulled and apologized for their blunder. Total lies - and you guys (once again) even put quotation marks around things I have never uttered. Then, Time needs to run an apology to Christina along with the retraction. (Add Hannity in your apology, too...those good folks don't deserve to be in a caustic, untrue story about me.) Thanks much - keep up the great work, Time Magazine."

How George W. Bush Laid The Groundwork For Hosni Mubarak’s Resignation

You won't find this out from reading the lamestream media:

A small, controversial effort launched under President George W. Bush to fund and train election monitors in Egypt played a key role in the movement to topple President Hosni Mubarak’s regime.


The program, which provided millions in direct funding to prodemocracy groups, helped dispatch 13,000 volunteers to observe Egypt’s parliamentary elections in December. Thousands of those monitors, angered by what they said was blatant election rigging, joined the protests. Some became outspoken leaders; others used the networking and communication skills they learned to help coordinate 18 days of rallies.


“The very fact that they saw the fraud firsthand has contributed to them turning from monitors into activists,’’ said Saad Eddin Ibrahim, founder of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, which has used a share of the US funds to train volunteers. “They became very disillusioned with the regime.’’


The evolving role of the monitors provides a measure of vindication for Bush administration officials and allies, including Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, who fought for permission to funnel money to the monitors, bucking a longstanding US policy of giving Egypt a veto over US funds.


“I certainly feel vindicated,’’ said Charles King Mallory IV, a former aide to Elizabeth Cheney, who could not be reached for comment.

RELATED: Egypt's Military Dissolves Parliament, Suspends Constitution