Ricin Letters & Boston Bombing Suspects
Someone tries to poison Obama, and a major breakthrough occurs in the reporting of all the things people don't know yet about the Boston bombings. (01:54)
Bill O'Reilly has criticized the media for describing Anders Behring-Breivik, the man who has admitted to committing the mass killings in Norway, as a Christian, saying that such a thing was "impossible."
O'Reilly singled out the New York Times, which called Breivik a "Christian extremist" in an article. Breivik also referred to himself as a Christian, as did the Norwegian police, not to mention his 1,500 page manifesto which makes reference to Christian crusaders known as The Knights Templar.
O'Reilly was manic as he concluded that it was "impossible" for Breivik to be a Christian. And certainly not just because he (Brevic) said so himself.
"No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder," he said. "The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith...we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way."
However, since the Fox clip seems to be “disabled” at this time, I can only show you Jon Stewart’s take on the situation. The Daily Show segment “GOP Special Victims Unit” is a montage of hypocrisy over at Fox News which includes O’Reilly hissy fit.
The media is widely reporting that Bradlee Dean, a Minnesota "christian rocker", has filed a $50 million dollar lawsuit against MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in a Tuesday press release.
MSNBC has called the suit "baseless" in a statement. Dean's suit stems from an August 2010 segment of TRMS in which Maddow quoted a statement Bradlee Dean made on his radio show:
"Muslims are calling for the execution of homosexuals in America. They themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than the American Christians do. Because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination. If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that."
First of all, let’s correct the misleading “Christian Rocker” aspect in the narrative of this issue. Bradlee Dean is as much of a Christian Rocker as Joe is a plumber. According to the introduction of Dean’s own web site, Bradlee Dean touts himself as “the founder and executive director of the non-profit ministry, YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CANNOT HIDE INTERNATIONAL.
The web site says that “Dean hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, THE SONS OF LIBERTY, a hard hitting radio program which attacks the hot issues of today, combats the lies in the media, and re-establishes the foundations of our country. Bradlee Dean recently debuted on FOX News as a part of a radio extraordinaire guest panel on Fox and Friends.”
At the very bottom of the web site, virtually the last line of html, there is a link where you can buy Mr. Dean's "My War DVD" which is a documentary. So Christian Rocker? – I don’t think so. Mr. Dean is a Fox Radio personality with a hankering to echo the homophobic rhetoric of his cultural icon Rep. Michelle Bachmann. (R) Minn.
The scary thing is that Dean's website describes his "My War" DVD as follows:
"A series like none other. This unique documentary encompasses the huge spectrum of issues we face in our society today and takes you back to the foundation of our country, to give understanding and clarity of who our Founders were and their true intentions when they established this Judeo-Christian nation. Watch as Bradlee Dean and his crew go into the public school system with the truth, while exposing the lies being thrown on our young, and watch the contention build!"
I would love to know exactly which public schools have allowed access to Mr. Dean and his crew with their "message of truth". Dean claims to have brought his message to over 331 public high schools in 20 states. Something worthy of looking into from a constitutional standpoint.
Mealwhile, Mr. Dean charged Maddow with deliberately ignoring a disclaimer that he issued which stressed that he was not calling for gay people to be killed. He said Maddow's airing of his statement caused "serious" harm to him and the ministry he runs.
However, a review of the August segement showed that Maddow did read the disclaimer--"we have never and will never call for the execution of homosexuals"--just after airing Dean's statement.
Dean also said he is an ally of Michele Bachmann, and accused Maddow and the "left wing media" of using him to harm her presidential prospects. Even though he is filing a multi-million dollar lawsuit, Dean said that "money is not the issue."
However it's Dean and his ministry that has hurt Bachmann's presidential prospects assuming that any ever existed. Bachmann must still account for her ongoing connection with Bradlee Dean and his notoriously anti-gay "You Can Run But You Can’t Hide" ministry. Dean has been described as “Bachmann’s Jeremiah Wright,” and has repeatedly called for gays and lesbians to be put in prison and has said executing gays is “moral.”
This is not a case of the Liberal media attacking a "Christian rocker". It’s a matter of a conservative radio talk show host being called out for his crazy rhetoric. Mr. Dean shouldn't be surprised when his crazy rhetoric gets quoted on cable news and then becomes, ironically for Mr. Dean, those types of things from which you can run, but you cannot hide. Okaaaaaay!
- Chico Brisbane
Source: http://mywarfilm.com/
Source: http://bradleedean.com/
In spite of all the radical things that Beck had said during his 2 years on the Fox News Channel, I think it was his interview with Rep. Eric Massa that highlights just how despirate Glenn Beck was to bring down anything liberal or progressive.
After hyping a widespread progressive corruption conspiracy for days, Glenn Beck relied on scandal plagued democratic congressman Eric Massa to help him blow the whistle.
According to Beck, it was Massa that had the goods on all of this corruption and he would be dedicating an entire hour f his show to expose all of the evil wrong doing.
Thanks for all of the laughs Glenn.
Why can’t Fox News and Bill O’Reilly just admit they're wrong about the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Allen over at The Liberal Viewer You Tube Channel outlines in a video that the local Fox News affiliate got it wrong right from the start.
There was a misleading banner along the lower 1/3 of the television screen that read:
“OBAMA BIN LADEN DEAD” Fox News is famous for these banner mishaps, but in all fairness, I think this was just a case of missing punctuation. It would make more since in the following format “OBAMA: BIN LADEN DEAD” as if Obama was making the announcement that Bin Laden was dead. Besides this banner error, the local Fox affiliate also reported that Bin Laden had been killed almost a week earlier by a bomb. Of course, this was just false reporting.
But where Bill O’Reilly is clearly wrong was during a 2008 interview with then Senator Obama on the topic of a potential Bin Laden capture. In a campaign speech, candidate Obama said that if the United States had actionable intelligence that Osama Bin Ladin was hiding in Pakistan and Pakistan was unwilling or unable to assist, he wouldn’t hesitate to go in and get him. Bill O’Reilly went after Obama in the video below over that very comment from the Denver speech.
BILL O’REILLY: “You gave a speech in Denver. Good speech by the way, but you bloviated about McCain not following him (Bin Laden) to the cave. You’re not going to invade Pakistan Senator if you’re president. You’re not gonna send ground troops in there. You know it!”
Well, that is exactly what Barack Obama did when he became president. For some reason, Bill O’Reilly just can’t bring himself to admit he was wrong. Not just slightly wrong, but categorically wrong. I take particular offense to O’Reilly's comment that Obama “Bloviated” about capturing Osama Bin Ladin.
blo·vi·ate/ˈblōvēˌāt/
Verb: Talk at length, esp. in an inflated or empty way.
Come on O’Reilly! – Just admit it! - There was nothing inflated or empty about Obama’s campaign promise to capture and kill Osama Bin Ladin. If anyone “bloviated” it was George W. Bush when he shouted through a bullhorn on that rubble pile at ground zero. Remember Bill? – How George W. Bush promised that Bin Ladin “would be hearing from all of us soon.” That was bloviating.
Remember when George W. Bush spoke from the flight deck of The Abraham Lincoln and announced that combat operations in Iraq were over? Remember how he made that announcement beneith that enormous "mission accomplished" banner? -That was bloviating.
As it turns out, it was Barack Obama that took care of Osama Bin Laden and ended combat operations in Iraq. That's not bloviating, it's just a fact.
Visit Liberal Viewer Here: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer#p/u/9/_9bS75JOP_Q
I wonder if Fox News will call on Victoria Jackson to share more pearls of wisdom about Barack Obama during the upcoming election cycle.
On the WorldNetDaily site, Jackon outlines “The 3 scariest things about Obama” and ask “why isn’t anyone freaking out”
1. private army (like Hitler)
2. socialist (like Hitler)
3. media control (like Hitler)
“A clause hidden in the Obamacare bill, which is now law, gives Obama the right to form a private army. Why isn’t anyone freaking out?” Jackson ask.
I’m not sure what is more rediculous. Victoria Jackson or Fox News for thinking this stupid bitch has anything of substance to add to the public discourse. Here’s an example of Jacksons vast wealth of wisdom.
Read more: The 3 scariest things about Obama Here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=322057#ixzz1SqVIo0qT
Oopsie-Daisy! 
CNN’s Brian Todd has uncovered video of a Fox News panel going out of their way to avoid reporting on the corruption scandal surrounding Fox News Channels parent company News Corp.
The dialog in the video clip was for the live streaming audience, but was recorded while the panel assumed they where away for a commercial break. You can clearly hear Cal Thomas get the conversation started.
CAL THOMAS: Anybody wanna bring up the subject we’re not talking about for the streamers?
JIM PINKERTON: Go ahead Cal.
CAL THOMAS: I’m not gonna touch it.
JUDITH MILLER: With a 10-foot turban.
I’m not sure if liberal commentator Alan Colmes (closest on right) was aware of the fact that the conversation was streaming live to online viewers, but you can see him shift uncomfortably in his chair and adjust his tie.
FROM: Crooks & Liars
As a general media rule, if you have to assure viewers that you're not a pedophile then you've already lost the debate. But this is exactly what happened when Fox News contributor Dr. Keith Ablow appeared on Fox & Friends Tuesday to object to a baby doll that helps children learn about breastfeeding.
"It's beyond ridiculous," Ablow told Fox News' Alisyn Camerota. "It's destructive. Little girls aren't even aware how their secondary sexual characteristics will develop, let alone imitating how they'll be used after childbirth. This is another way of turning little girls into adults. It blurs the boundary between children and adults in society. It contributes to the sexualization of children and it makes them targets of assailants, frankly, because it blurs that boundary. It's a terrible, terrible idea."
"I'm going to have to respectfully disagree," parenting expert Jessica Gottlieb told Ablow. "I'm not sure that if you see a little girl as her breasts being sexual that that doesn't reflect more on you than on what breasts are."
"I assure you I'm not a pedophile at all," Ablow objected.
"Dr. Ablow, I think she raises a great point," Camerota noted. "Why is it sexual? Why isn't it just natural?"
Read More Here : http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/fox-news-contributor-declares-hes-not-pedoph
I wonder if Bill O’Reilly will summon his own body language expert to The Factor set to review the body language of his fearless leader and son?
From what I could see, squirming would not be too far from an accurate description. Of course, an attempted pie-in-the-face surely helped to remind everyone about the public outrage surrounding the whole sordid mess. It has made the Murdoch name the News of The World…. ironically.
Judi on the other hand is one of the UK’s leading body language and behaviour experts. She has written many books on the subject, including The Body Language Bible and The You Code – What Everything You Do Says About You, and appears regularly on Sky News and the BBC analysing politicians during the election.
JUDI SAYS:
It was a stunning double act. From the outset the mirrored body language of Rupert Murdoch and his son James showed they were presenting a united front.
The two sat side-by-side at the table, facing forwards with their hands in a uniform gesture, clasped loosely on the desk in front of them.
The handclasp is a restraining gesture – it prevents the speaker from over-gesticulating and stops them fiddling, which can be seen to be a suspicious, nervous act.
Crucially, with both hands on the table and out in the open, this is a gesture that conveys honesty and openness.
If there had been media coaching before the interview, it was here that it showed, and throughout the interview, the two returned to this ‘pole position’ many times.
Read More Here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016527/What-Murdochs-DIDNT-say-spoke-volumes-Body-language-expert-exposes-chalk-cheese-double-act.html
Way back in November of 2009, I pondered the possibility of Lou Dobbs replacing the train wreck at Fox News that has become Glenn Beck. I wrote in this blog post that my prediction is that Lou Dobbs will replace an already burned out Glenn Beck at Fox News and do so in Beck's timeslot.
While Dobbs is already slated to revamp is "Lou Dobbs Tonight" show at Fox, a later reassignment into Beck's old timeslot would be likely.
It would be similar to how Lawrence O'Donnell's show was allowed to get underway, but then shifted timeslots once Keith Olbermann was purged from MSNBC's line-up.
I'm sure Fox News Exec's are contemplating the worst case scenario of another presidential election cycle with Glenn Beck and a functioning microphone. I think it all began when Beck changed the format of his show from the traditional behind the desk news program into what it's become. A never ending revisionist history lesson complete with chalkboards and homework assignments. It's not surprising that Becks literary offerings to the world are the textbooks required to understand his convoluted message.
Even further back in July of 2009 in this blog post I was wondering if Lou Dobbs was 'screen testing' for Fox News. He seemed to be going in a conspiratorial direction similar to Beck when Dobbs started to embrace controversy by pretending not to embrace it. One of my favorites was how Dobbs would say that President Obama could put the whole birther thing to rest if he'd just show 'everyone' his 'real' birth certificate. Then he'd quickly clarify that by 'real' birth certificate, he meant the 'original' birth certificate.
Now there are rumblings of Beck's pending demise in the New York Times today that anonymous officials at Fox News are "looking at the end of his contract in December and contemplating life without Mr. Beck."
I have to say that I have no idea how this is going to pan out. I mean one can always hope, right? - Hang on a minute! - I got it!
SHAKE! - SHAKE! -SHAKE
Question: Oh Magic 8 Ball ! - Is Glenn Beck's goose cooked over at Fox News?
Answer: Doubtful :(
FUCK YOU MAGIC 8 BALL! - YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT!
The definition of Shepard Smith "going rogue" is when he inserts facts into his news reporting and agrees with popular opinion.
Of course this type of constructive journalism always results in the sycophantic viewership of Fox News calling for Smiths immediate termination.
When Smith dropped the "F" bomb during his infamous "WE DON'T FUCKING TORTURE!" outburst, the video hit YouTube and the right-wing distain for Smith was immediate. A commentor on the Fox News website called Smith a "mamby-pamby closet liberal." and question why "Fox still has him on the air."
Pamela Geller, editor of the Atlas Shrugs Website, thrashed Smith in a June post on World Net Daily by writing that Smith was "torturing conservatives" and that "Shepard Smith has got to go." Another blogger dismissed him as a "cowardly narcissist."
When discussing the Wisconsin union workers protest with guest Juan Williams, Smith said that "to pretend that this is about a fiscal crisis in the State of Wisconsin is malarkey." Williams did not disagree with Smith, but nevertheless warned Smith that he will be upsetting many viewers by presenting the facts. Smith brushed it off by saying that "facts are troublesome creatures sometimes." as shown in the clip below.
.
Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show," dubbed Smith "the black Shep of the Fox family" for his fair & balanced reporting on the presidential campaign. Stewart said the Fox anchor had gone rogue by taking Joe The Plumber to task over his "Obama = the death of Israel" comment as shown in the clip below.
Fox Nation has closed the coments on the racially titled story regarding Los Angeles City Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
That seems a bit premature after only 143 comments which have also been deleated by the way. News Hounds ask the question in this blog post this blog post
"Why would "Fox Nation," the site that is "opposed to intolerance," be engaging in what appears to be race baiting?" referring to the Fox Nation story which is titled LA's Hispanic Mayor Wants Taller Wall Around His Mansion
The Fox Nation thread is linked to an article in the LA Times which is titled "Villaraigosa Fights For Taller Walls Around Mayor’s Mansion." which doesn't include the Mayor's ethnicity.
News Hounds also asked "Why is Villaraigosa's ethnicity relevent to the story? Interesting...." That is interesting, but why would Fox Nation think it's a good idea to shut down the debate over the controversy they created? - I mean, isn't that the point?
A year ago Glenn was crying about his pending blindness, but as usual, his pittyful prognostications only suit the moment and never seem to materalize.
.
In every segment that Laura Ingraham has participated in regarding the Park 51 Islamic Community Center, which she refers to as a Mosque, she likes to set the constitutional aspect of the argument aside by saying:
"Nobody is saying that they don't have a constitutional right to build it wherever they want, but 70% of Americans believe it should be built somewhere else, so shouldn't they do that?"
It reminds me of one of those juvenile questions from Jr. High School like "Does your mom know that you're gay?" and then everyone has a good laugh when some kid fails to realize that the question is invalid, but tries to answer it anyway.
If Ingraham asked me weather they should build the Mosque elsewhere because 70% of Americans believe they should, I would take the position that giving up constitutional rights to satisfy public opinion is something that I would never encourage any person or group of people to do.
Once you let that genie out of the bottle, it's not going back inside until everyone else has made the same mistake. An Islamic Mosque today, a Budist Temple tomorrow. Of course Ingraham wants to nail you to the question and I can just hear her saying "But what do you think? - Do you think they should ignore 70% of Americans?"
There's nothing wrong with saying that they should do whatever is in their best interest and I'm not sure why so many of her guest feel like there is something wrong in taking that position.
However, in the real world down here on earth where Ingraham and Fox News are wagging the dog over this issue, the developers of Park 51 should not overlook Fox's ability to incite crazy people to do crazy things. Just like Glenn Beck's continious rant about The Tides Foundation resulted in someone attempting to pay them a visit with loaded weapons.
I truely believe that Ingraham is trying to create enough fear and outrage with her "evil mosque" rant until some Glenn Beck fan pays The Park 51 site a visit in the wee hours of the night with a can of gasoline and a book of matches. Let's not forget that Bill O'Reilly's continuous rant about Dr. George Tiller finally resulted in him being shot and killed in his own church. Therefore, my supposition is not just hypothetical, but probable giving The Fox News Channels track record for indirectly inciting violence.
The Developers of park 51, in my opinion, should issue a press release saying that they have considered their options are going to look for another location or that they are commited to the Park 51 location and that the matter is closed. This way the rational people can say "Okay, we gave it a shot" and the radicals who like to pick and choose when the U.S. Constitution should be applicable can go ahead with trying to get an injunction to hault construction. Because that is exactly what they are going to do.
If you don't cower to their bark, they're gonna bite. I just hope that The Park 51 Group makes the right dicision. Whatever that may be is not for me to decide, but I know what I would do.
As for Ingraham's suspicions about where the money is coming from to pay for the community center, if she has any reasonable suspicion that terrorist orgainzations are involved, she should contact the FBI, DHS, or even the NYPD for that matter. I suspect that she hasn't since a major funder of the park 51 site is the second largest stockholder in Fox News and it's parent company News Corp.
- Chico Brisbane
In a segment on Fox & Friends about sham marriages, Alisyn Camerota explains how some people marry for love, while others marry to get their hands on a green card. Camerota said that with the United States cracking down on illegal immigration, more and more immigrants are using these shams marriages as a path to legal citizenship.
My initial thought was that perhaps this growing trend of "sham marriages" was an unintended result of Arizona's tough new immigration law, but it became clear, very quickly where this segment was headed, and who was at fault.
Steve Doocey introduces Jessica Vaughn, Director of Policy for The Center For Immigration Studies. Usually these segment start by the host asking a question, but Doocey couldn't wait to connect illegal immigration to terrorism and kick up the fear factor a few notches by introducing The Times Square Bomber, Faisil Shahzad's name into the conversation.
DOOCEY: "Good morning to you Jessica. Um, ya know the case of the Times Square bomber. Uh, how did he wind up with citizenship? He married into the United States of America. Tell me why this is becoming a big, uh a bigger problem?"
When Steve Doocey started to say that this was becoming a big problem, but quickly stopped himself and switched the word "big" for "bigger", you could sense that they already had a destination as to where this story was going. They just needed to finish reading their lines to get there.
VAUGHN: "Well the biggest problem is that under this administration now, the agency that's responsible for adjudicating all of these green card applications sees itself really as a facilitator of immigration and a promoter of immigration, rather than an agency that's supposed to weed out all the bad applications. The number of green cards that are issued based on marriage is in the hundreds of thousands every year. In fact, it represents about a third of all green cards and frankly a lot of these are fraudulent. Most of them (gulp) are legitimate. But it's really the easiest way for someone that is here illegally to pretty much launder their status. And they just have to get through a two year conditional residence period before they can divorce their spouse and then in a couple more years, they can become a citizen and then sponsor others."
If you didn't know any better, many viewers watching this exchange would be left with the impression that Faisal Shahzad, The Times Square Bomber, was able to gain entrance into this country and eventually obtain citizenship entirely as a result of the immigration policy "under this administration now" as Jessica Vaughn had just described to Steve Doocey as being "the biggest problem. "
I would describe Vaughn's attempt to single out the Obama Administration's immigration policy in this matter as disingenuous, particularly since she has written extensively about Shahzad's immigration status in the United States going back to 1998. According to the website for The Center for Immigration Policy, Jessica Vaughn wrote a scathing report indicating that Shahzad was first issued a student visa in Islamabad on December 22, 1998. This is what Vaughn had to say about the issuance of that student visa more than 11 years ago.
"It is difficult to justify the issuance of this student visa. Shahzad certainly failed to demonstrate that he had “sufficient academic preparation to pursue the intended course of study” at the University of Bridgeport, as the regulations required. He was applying as a transfer student, and his transcript from his correspondence course with Southeastern University, a now defunct fourth-rate academic program, showed a GPA of 2.78, including several Ds and an F (in statistics). Moreover, during the 1990s, the University of Bridgeport was financially and academically troubled, with its accreditation and reputation in serious jeopardy, and actively seeking foreign students to compensate for plummeting U.S. enrollment. Not only was the visa a mistake, but the visa officer appears to have erred in giving Shahzad a four-year visa when two would have sufficed to complete the program that Shahzad reportedly told officials he wanted to complete. Many news accounts have asserted that Shahzad underwent a “criminal background check” in order to qualify for the visa. Not exactly — in 1998 this would have been a check of CLASS, the consular database with information on prior refusals, ineligibility's, and derogatory information such as federal arrest warrants, and TIPOFF, which was a watchlist of known and suspected terrorists. Today’s watchlists and databases are far more comprehensive, but still would not have provided grounds for refusal, as Shahzad apparently had no serious criminal history. Under the law, however, the mere absence of a criminal or terrorist history is not enough by itself to qualify for a U.S. visa."
It would have been a good idea for Vaughn to mention her report when Shahzad's name was introduced into the conversation. With her firm belief that Shahzad shouldn't have been allowed into the country in the first place back in 1998, it makes the conversation of him obtaining citizenship via marriage, 11 years down the road, a bit silly. But of course I understand that if she were so inclined to be honest, she would have to do that on an entirely different network.
If you look at Vaughn's full report, titled Faisil Shahzad: So easy anyone could do it you can see how Shahzad was granted various different visas into this country beginning in December of 1998 through January of 2006 when his green card application was approved. All of which have nothing to do with "this administration now" as Vaughn emphasized during the segment.
Furthermore, the final paragraph of Vaughn's report shows that Faisil Shahzad met the conditional residence period in October of 2008 and applied for citizenship. Vaughn asserts that Shahzad's rush to apply for citizenship so quickly after meeting the requirement, should have been a red flag according to a DHS study - I agree, but what does any have to do with Barack Obama or his administration? - Do they think that by saying "the administration now" in lieu of "the Obama administration" makes any difference? - From my perspective. It makes all of the not-so-subtle implications throughout this segment of Fox & Friends seem very unfair & seriously unbalanced. Particularly when you compare it to Vaughn's own report on Faisil Shahzad.
© Copyright 2010 | CHICO BRISBANE | Theme by Midmodesign.Com | All Rights Reserved - Chico Brisbane Internet Media
Jon Stewert Thank You Boston
Colbert Report On 4th of July