Friday, January 13, 2012
Watch the original ABC News segment that O’Reilly took issue with below:
On Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly strongly pushed back against a report by ABC News’ World News Tonight that he had advanced the narrative that First Lady Michelle Obama was an “angry black woman.” “ABC News didn’t tell the audience it got its clip they used on me from the far-left web site Media Matters which is in business solely to smear non-liberal media people,” O’Reilly opined. “We brought the situation to ABC’s attention today they say from now on they will call people like me who are injected into their news coverage. I think it’s important because I’m simply not going to let the presidential campaign degenerate into a race-baiting media propaganda exposition…let’s cut the crap.”RELATED: Michelle Obama rejects 'angry black woman' label
According to O’Reilly, ABC News used audio extracted from a Media Matters blog post from September 16, 2008:
During the “Obama Chronicles” segment of the September 16 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly stated of Michelle Obama: “Now I have a lot of people who call me on the radio and say she looks angry. And I have to say there’s some validity to that. She looks like an angry woman.”
During the segment, O’Reilly asked Vogue magazine contributing editor Rebecca Johnson: “The perception is that she’s angry in some quarters. Valid?”
“That sounds kind of bad, does it not?” O’Reilly acknowledged. “Here is the context — that interview was done three and a half years ago when the country was still getting to know Mrs. Obama, who did have some problems in the beginning. You will remember the ‘proud of her country remark.’”
During the segment defending himself, O’Reilly played a montage of every nice thing he has ever said about the First Lady.
“For ABC to paint me critical of her is flat-out dishonest,” O’Reilly exclaimed. “A lot of us have a lot riding on America’s future. It’s about America’s future. Let’s cut the crap. Can we?”
Thursday, January 12, 2012
This is not only a shocker for its unanimity, but could have consequences that would greatly benefit conservatives:
Religious organizations won a landmark victory Wednesday as the Supreme Court held that churches have the right to make employment decisions free from government interference over discrimination laws.RELATED: My Take: Huge win for religious liberty at the Supreme Court
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court endorsed for the first time the “ministerial exception” to state and federal employment discrimination laws while rejecting the Obama administration’s argument that churches should be treated no differently than other employers.
“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the court’s 39-page opinion.
“When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.”
Allowing former employees to file anti-discrimination lawsuits “could end up forcing churches to take religious leaders they no longer want,” he said.
Advocates of religious liberty hailed the ruling as a crucial win for churches in the face of government encroachment.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration’s profoundly troubling claim of power over churches, and glad to see that the Supreme Court has stayed out of the Lutheran Church’s affairs and allowed its internal rules as a body of believers to stand,” said Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council.
The case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, centered on a former teacher, Cheryl Perich, who argued that she was fired from the Missouri Synod Lutheran school in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mrs. Perich had been promoted from a temporary lay teacher to a “called” teacher in 2000, but had taken leave after being diagnosed with narcolepsy. School officials refused to hire her back because they had already replaced her with a substitute for the year. After she threatened to sue to get her job back, the Redford, Mich., church fired her, saying using secular courts to solve an interchurch issue violated its teaching on resolving such disputes.
After the EEOC sued on her behalf, a federal judge threw out the lawsuit, holding that her firing fell under the law’s ministerial exception. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, holding that the ministerial exception failed to apply because Mrs. Perdich taught primarily secular subjects.
The high court overturned the Circuit Court, concluding that the constitution’s free exercise and establishment clauses protect a church’s ability to select its leadership and lower-level employees.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Who needs Glee to stretch the boundaries of acceptable behavior on broadcast television?No surprise here. "Modern Family" is a favorite in the mostly white liberal media world for its pro-homosexual agenda that features a gay, white, male couple "raising" a kid together despite the fact that it's in a child's best interest to be raised by a married man and woman. But morally bankrupt social liberals love shows that showcase anti-Christian sentiments, thus shows like "Modern Family", regardless of how funny it is or isn't, will forever be provided with a lifeline and will no doubt be deluged with awards from liberal Hollywood for continuing to promote an American culture that is growing increasingly hostile towards Christianity.
According to Entertainment Weekly, a toddler will say the F-word on an upcoming episode of ABC's comedy hit Modern Family:
On next week’s Modern Family, toddler Lily is going to use one of the worst of George Carlin’s famous Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.
The adopted two-and-a-half year-old character somehow picks up the profanity “f–k.” This naturally horrifies her parents, Cam and Mitchell, who in particular fear she’ll blurt it at an upcoming bridal party. Lily is shown saying the word, but it’s not audible to the viewer. The episode’s title: “Little Bo Bleep.” It might be the first time in a scripted family broadcast TV series where a child has said the f-word.
As EW reported, creator Steve Levitan had quite the sales job convincing ABC to go through with this.
That the network bought is quite a comment about the state of America's prime time broadcast media.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Last week, Rush Limbaugh was one of the many predicting Newt Gingrich’s shots at Mitt Romney, the man he Gingrich believes ruined his front runner position, would only increase in intensity following Iowa. At the time, Gingrich seemed fine with the idea, pointing out that it would only end up helping Rick Santorum. However, the radio host clearly has not enjoyed the tenor of Gingrich’s attacks since then as he spent a large amount of today’s show absolutely lambasting the candidate and comparing him to such GOP-unfriendly entities as Occupy Wall Street, The New York Times, and Barack Obama.RELATED: CNN projects Romney win in New Hampshire, battle heads to S. Carolina
Limbaugh went so far that some commentators are describing this as the “nuclear bomb” been dropped on Gingrich.
Recently, Gingrich has been criticizing Romney’s Bain Capital past, making comments that some have seen as a knock on the free market. Rush Limbaugh certainly agreed.
“I don’t know why the Occupy Wall Street people are protesting Newt. They’re singing from the same hymnal on this. This is right out of the New York Times. Newt is parroting what the New York Times is writing about Romney.
Folks, it is clear here what is going on. This is not a campaign for the presidency. That’s not what this is anymore. This is payback time. It drove him nuts, that series of ads that Romney’s Super PAC ran in Iowa, and this is the result of it. That’s why we are where we are. I’m not trying to make excuses. I’m just explaining. I’m not defending anybody. I just think this is very unfortunate. This is not the kind of stuff that you want said by Republicans. Even the Establishment Republicans don’t go after Conservatives this way.”
Limbaugh isn’t the only one who’s seeing a leftist streak in Gingrich’s attacks. This is very similar to a piece Jon Stewart did last night. While Stewart was pointing out this seeming hypocrisy amongst the entire GOP field in their attacks on Romney, he did focus on Gingrich. More importantly, how often are we able to say Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart agree on something?
Newt Gingrich Blasts Media for Ignoring Anti-Christian Bigotry; ABC's GOP Debate Questions 6 to 1 Liberal, 25% on Contraception, Gay Rights
ABC's GOP presidential debate on Saturday overflowed with liberal questions. Of the 48 queries by George Stephanopoulos, Diane Sawyer and others, 20 came from the left, three were from the right and 25 were neutral or horse race questions. A whopping 25 percent (12 questions) revolved around contraception-related subjects or gay rights.
Although birth control isn't exactly a pressing 2012 issue (especially in a tough economy), George Stephanopoulos wasted seven questions on contraception. The former Democratic operative began by noting Rick Santorum's belief that there is no constitutional "right to privacy." He added, "And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception." The co-moderator repeated, "Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?"
When the ABC journalists weren't grilling the Republicans on birth control, the subject was gay marriage and homosexual issues in general (five questions). Josh McElveen, of New Hampshire's WMUR spun the candidates as unfeeling for not supporting the rights of gays to adopt.
To Santorum, he chided, "Your position on same-sex adoption, obviously, you are in favor of traditional families, but are you going to tell someone they belong in -- as a ward of the state or in foster care, rather than have two parents who want them?"
Co-moderator Sawyer read a question e-mailed from "Phil in Virginia." She sympathetically quoted, "We simply want to have the right to...form loving, committed, long-term relationships." Sawyer added, "In human terms, what would you say to them?"
Only three questions came from the right. One of those was when McElveen hit Ron Paul for not being in sync with the party's stance of a strong national defense: "You have said that you wouldn’t have authorized the raid to get Osama bin Laden. You think that a nuclear Iran is really none of our business. How do you reconcile that, when part of your job as president would be" to defend America?
The bias grew so bad that Newt Gingrich, again, spoke out, slamming the moderators. In relation to the focus on gay rights, he ripped:
NEWT GINGRICH: I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration? The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.
Shouldn't the point of a Republican debate be to inform Republican voters who is the authentic conservative? All Stephanopoulos and Sawyer did was badger the candidates with liberal talking points.
Monday, January 09, 2012
Conservatives know that MSNBC is nothing but a ratings fail, with consistently last-place shows that feature far-Left hosts that no one takes seriously but the few radically-leftist yahoos out there that bother to watch them (i.e. "echo chamber"). That's why it's kind of funny to see MSNBC get rid of one of the conservatives left on their programs, Pat Buchanan, for having the nerve to write a book in which he expounds on his conservative views. No doubt MSNBC was pressured by its few remaining viewers to get rid of Buchanan, but still:
Reading what Phil Griffin had to say today about the Pat Buchanan situation made me think about why this is happening.
“During the period of the book tour I asked him not to be on,” Mr. Griffin said. “Since then the issue has become the nature of some of the statements in the book.”
Mr. Buchanan argues in “Suicide of a Superpower” — which has the subtitle “Will America Survive to 2025?” — that the “European and Christian core of our country is shrinking,” which is damaging the nation “ethnically, culturally, morally, politically.” The book also contains a chapter titled “The End of White America.”
I haven’t read Pat’s book nor do I have any interest in doing so. But this is not new territory for Pat Buchanan to venture in to. He’s been on the edge of the paleocon xenophobic spectrum for a long time and anyone who has followed him even in passing can attest to this.
Certainly anyone who has dealt with Pat at MSNBC knows this. Pat has not changed. He may be a bit more vocal and shrill about it but he hasn’t changed his positions.
On the other hand, MSNBC has changed. It openly courts Progressive views and news. It puts out job ads asking for candidates with a progressive news background. Its pundit host class is all progressive and the network lets them show up en masse at the White House for off the record get togethers. The network is openly and aggressively courting the African American viewing audience so much so that it now notes how big it is in African American viewership in its releases.
Add all these things together and you now have a scenario where MSNBC, which used to be able to handle a Pat Buchanan and his intransigent controversial views, can no longer afford to do so without alienating core constituencies it covets. As Bill Carter wrote today…
Mr. Griffin said, “The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.” The network has set out to brand itself as a network designed to appeal to progressive and liberal viewers.
Phil Griffin basically copped to it. If you piss off MSNBC core demographic audiences and they start going ape, as Color of Change did over Buchanan, you may end up being taken off the network, whereas five years ago such a tactic probably would not have succeeded.
And yet, this isn’t Michael Savage we’re talking about where some guy says something on MSNBC’s air that’s toxic. This is Pat Buchanan who is smart enough to moderate and modulate what he says on MSNBC vs. what he writes in his books. Buchanan in effect is being punished on MSNBC for something he didn’t do on MSNBC but is something that he’s been well known for by the people at MSNBC for years.
What I find ironic about this, and gave me the motivation to write up the headline the way I did, is with the Pat Buchanan situation MSNBC has gone and returned to the days of Phil Donahue and the run up to the Iraq War except it’s inverted because this time it’s not Conservative viewers MSNBC is afraid of alienating with Buchanan as it was nearly 10 years ago with Donahue…it’s Progressive ones.
Obama Covered Up Lavish Secret Party
Giffords Leads Crowd In Pledge At Shooting Anniversary Vigil
Democrats Show No Willingness To Tackle Spending Madness
Pelosi Urges Obama To Run Against Do-Nothing Congress
DOJ Redefines Rape To Include ‘Any Gender,’ Any Penetration
HuffPo: Monogamy Is Killing Marriage
Contraceptives, Stephanopoulos, And What To Do About The Debates
Tapper Acknowledges In 2008 The Media ‘Tilted On The Scales A Little Bit’ For Obama
Lesbians Get On Girl’s Birth Certificate
The Gun Laws We Desperately Need
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Lest you doubt that we’re headed for the most vicious election year in memory, consider the determined effort, within ten minutes of his triumph in Iowa, to weirdify Rick Santorum. Discussing the surging senator on Fox News, Alan Colmes mused on some of the “crazy things” he’s said and done.RELATED: Joe Scarborough Grills Eugene Robinson Over His Comments On Rick Santorum’s Newborn
Santorum has certainly said and done many crazy things, as have most members of America’s political class, but the “crazy thing” Colmes chose to focus on was Santorum’s “taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home,” whereupon he “played with it.” My National Review colleague Rich Lowry rightly slapped down Alan on air, and Colmes subsequently apologized, though not before Mrs. Santorum had been reduced to tears by his remarks. Undeterred, Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize–winning Washington Post columnist, doubled down on stupid and insisted that Deadbabygate demonstrated how Santorum is “not a little weird, he’s really weird.”
The short life of Gabriel Santorum would seem a curious priority for political discourse at a time when the Brokest Nation in History is hurtling toward its rendezvous with destiny. But needs must, and victory by any means necessary. In 2008, the Left gleefully mocked Sarah Palin’s live baby. It was only a matter of time before they moved on to a dead one.
Not many of us will ever know what it’s like to have a child who lives only a few hours. That alone should occasion a certain modesty about presuming to know what are “weird” and unweird reactions to such an event.
In 1996, the Santorums were told during the pregnancy that their baby had a fatal birth defect and would not survive more than a few hours outside the womb. So Gabriel was born, his parents bundled him, and held him, and baptized him. And two hours later he died. They decided to take his body back to the home he would never know. Weirdly enough, this crazy weird behavior is in line with the advice of the American Pregnancy Association, which says that “it is important for your family members to spend time with the baby” and “help them come to terms with their loss.”
Would I do it? Dunno. Hope I never have to find out. Many years ago, a friend of mine discovered in the final hours of labor that her child was dead but that she would still have to deliver him. I went round to visit her shortly after, not relishing the prospect but feeling that it was one of those things one was bound to do. I ditched the baby gift I’d bought a few days earlier but kept the flowers and chocolate. My friend had photographs of the dead newborn. What do you say? Oh, he’s got your face?
I was a callow pup in my early twenties, with no paternal instincts and no great empathetic capacity. But I understood that I was in the presence of someone who had undergone a profound and harrowing experience, one which it would be insanely arrogant for those of us not so ill-starred to judge.
There but for the grace of God go I, as we used to say.
There is something telling about what Peter Wehner at Commentary rightly called the “casual cruelty” of Eugene Robinson. The Left endlessly trumpets its “empathy.” President Obama, for example, has said that what he looks for in his judges is “the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” As he told his pro-abortion pals at Planned Parenthood, “we need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom.” Empathy, empathy, empathy: You barely heard the word outside clinical circles until the liberals decided it was one of those accessories no self-proclaimed caring progressive should be without.