Barry Manilow: Conservatives 'Dangerous'

Barry Manilow epitomizes the liberal reaction to being forced to share a stage with someone with whom he disagrees- instant flight! Manilow is apparently cancelling his scheduled appearance on the mostly-liberal gabfest show 'The View' because new host Elizabeth Hasselbeck is a conservative. According to TMZ, Manilow said of Hasselbeck,

In an exclusive statement to TMZ, Barry says, "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her."

So it seems that is is perfectly acceptable for liberals and/or Democrats to only go where their views will not be challenged, isn't it, Barry? I seem to recall the major Democratic candidates for President refusing to appear in a Fox-sponsored debate because they consider Fox 'right-wing'. I suspect that the real reason was that they might actually have to answeer questions that are not softballs about how terrible George W. Bush is and how unfeeling/corrupt/warmongering/[insert your preferred criticism here] the Republicans are. It seems to be a liberal failing to be unable to handle a frank exchange of disagreeing viewpoints. Maybe it is because they are so used to having a liberal echo chamber in the mainstream media?

However, if a Republican were to refuse to go on, say CNN due to the left-wing viewpoints espoused by so many of CNN's reporters and talking heads, the liberal media would scream. It seems that liberals and the media want completely free speech for what ever they emote, no matter how offensive or untrue, but cannot grant that privielege to anyone with whom they disagree. Remind me again about liberlas' support of 'free speech'? It seems that only they are entitled to free speech- anyone who might be *gasp* a conservative is not granted that right. I'm wondering when the media will denigrate Manilow's cowardice as he surely deserves. I won't hold my breath. Cross-posted at NewsBusters.

But Never Question Their Patriotism!

The so-called anti-war forces both in the United States and around the world love to be associated with 'peace'. Although they are never sure exactly how to achieve 'peace' without either surendering to or tgriumphing over those who would do us harm, they are always very outspoken about their desire for peace.

The anti-war movement's other great mantra is that they 'support the troops but not the mission' and they become very upset if one should actually questions their patriotism based on their admitted desire to ssee their own countrymeen and countrywomen defeated. However, it iss rare that they actually admit their real animus is their hatred for the U.S. President and American military personnel.

Today, a horrifying story from the Netherlands lays clear the underlying thought processes of most of the anti-war movement. According to Breitbart, an American living in the Netherlands took an axe to an innocent Dane when he could not find any U.S. troops to attack. As reported, this disturbed person, one Carlos Hartmann of Michigan,

The suspect, Carlos Hartmann, 41, of Tecumseh, Mich., has confessed to the Sept. 8 killing on a train platform in the southern city of Roosendaal, defence lawyer Peter Gremmen said.

Gremmen said Hartmann wanted to punish the Netherlands for its support of the war in Iraq.

Hartmann appeared before a judge Tuesday and was ordered held for another two weeks for investigation.

"He hates soldiers, and says that the army kills people, so it would be legitimate if he were also to kill someone . . . from the American military - or from its NATO allies," Gremmen said in a telephone interview.

While I abhor the act of unprovoked violence on an innocent, I would applaud Mr. Hartmann for his clear enunciation of the motives that I believe inspire most of the anti-war movement. It is not war they actually hate- if it were, they would have spoken out against Syria's twenty-plus year occupation of Lebananon, China's equally long occupation of Tibet, the Khmer Rouge's campaign against the Hmong, as well as the religious war Islam is conducting agasinst Sudanese Christians in Darfur and around the world. No, it is not actually war that they hate- it is the United States willingness to use military force to defend itself and promote its interests that they despise. They hate soldiers because soldiers, unlike the ''peace' movement, are patriotic, love their country and have the courage to actually do something about it. 'Peaceniks' have none of these virtues.

An isolated group of bad apples at the prison camp in Abu Ghraib weere made the face of the U.S military by the Press. How much does anyone bet that the Press will make this unhinged maniac the face of the peace movement, though he surely represents that movement's underlying beliefs more accurately than the Abu Ghraib group represented their fellow soldiers.

Hsu Flees: Press Not Interested in Cash Source

Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, whose many large contributions to Democratic coffers, including Hillary Clinton came from an apparently non-existent source, has jumped bail yet again. As reported by the Associated Press,

Hsu, a Hong Kong native, was also supposed to turn over his passport Wednesday. Hsu's prominent Silicon Valley criminal defense attorney Jim Brosnahan said Hsu failed to give the passport to the legal team on Monday.
"Mr. Hsu is not here and we do not know where Mr. Hsu is," Brosnahan said outside court. Brosnahan said that "there was some contact" with Hsu a few hours before the scheduled 9 a.m. court appearance, but he declined to say how and who talked to Hsu.
Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a felony count of grand theft, admitting he'd defrauded investors of $1 million after falsely claiming to have contracts to purchase and sell Latex gloves. He was facing up to three years in prison when he skipped town before his 1992 sentencing date.

This raises a number of questions- primarily why anyone would even think that a man who jumped bail once would bee trustworthy of being allowed to post bail a second time. However, the questions that should really be asked are where Hsu got his money, as it appears that he had no real source of income- certainly not enough to finance contributions on the scale that he made. So far it appears that not a single major news source has been interested enough to dig into Hsu's finances, just as they have neglected to report on the fact that most of his donations bear strong signs of beeing fronted through others. His benefitees, including Clinton, are only returning money given directly to their campaigns, but there was far more cash delivered via third parties who do not appear to have the resources to make large contributions, such as the Paw family.

Contrast this with the trweatment that the Press gave John Abramoff, who at least was a registered lobbyist with real sources of income. It would seem that Hsu should merit at least that level of interest. But at this time, nto a single MSM news organization has shown any interest in investigating Hsu's finances, with a few exceptions. In the same AP report that announced Hsu's flight, the reporter wrote merely,

But a few years ago, Hsu re-emerged in New York as an apparel executive and a wealthy benefactor of Democratic causes and candidates.

The fact that the money is difficult to trace to any source, appears to trouble no journalists on a national scale. is the threat of foreign corruption of the United States election process not tgrouboling to any of these so-called reporters? They still find the troubles of Idaho Senator Larry Craig newsworthy enough to be on the front page. Why is a Democratic fundraiser, with no known source of income, who is wanted for skipping bail on fraud charges and who may be linked to Chinese military money for all we know, not receiving more in-depth scrutiny?

Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Media Ignore Poland Anniversary In Diana Deluge

The world's media are busy mourning the death of the Princess Diana ten years ago. While they are mourning the fact that they lost a ready-made newsmaker who shared many of their goals, they have forgotten to remember the anniversary of a far more important event than the death of a minor celebrity, famed only for her beauty.

As I was reminded by Lead and Gold, today is the twenty-seventh anniversary of the Polish communist government agreeing to the demands of striking shipyard workers. This surrender by the Communists of Poland presaged the breaking loose of the satellite nations of the SOviet Union's Iron Curtain and led directly to the fall of the U.S.S.R. As Lead and Gold writes,

The strike marked the beginning of the end of communist rule in Eastern Europe. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are, rightly, given the greatest share of credit for winning the Cold War. But Lech Walesa and John Paul II played indispensable roles.

...

In the long twilight struggle against Stalinism, the workers of Poland were the first light of sunrise.

Yes, they were. But you won't see a murmur of this immensely important anniversary in the mainstream media. So far, there has been not a single mention of this anniversary on the sites of CNN, ABC News, MSNBC, CBS News, Yahoo News or the New York Times. For journalists, it is an major inconvenience that those darn Poles had to begin the march toward freedom from the chattering classes preferred political system. So they continue to blather about Diana's death and try to ignore remembering things far more important. Crosss-posted on NewsBusters.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Most Americans Believe Iraq Victory Possible: Press Misses Story

A new Zogby Poll says that 54 percent of Americans believe Iraq is not a lost cause. However, the mainstram media have so far not managed to report much if anything on the startling new poll.

A majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq, but there is dramatic disagreement on the question between Democrats and Republicans, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. While two in three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of Republicans say the same.

Many Democrats, seeing the fact that the surge appears to be working, have realized that their defeatist attitudes and willingness to surrender may cost them dearly in the enxt election, have changed their tune somewhat, or, like the New York Times, have merely moved the goalposts of what constitutes victory. However, the major media, who have been overwhelmingly in favor of a precipitous defeat seem to be a little slow in reporting that their years of negative reporting and defeatism have not yet managed to dissuade a majority of their countrymen from wanting to win.

As of 1637 Pacific time today, the New York Times had still not put the new poll on its front page. ABC News seems to think that audio of Senator Craig's police interview is more compelling- they also have not yet mentioned the new poll. MSNBC also has not yet posted anything regarding the new poll; neither has CBS News, which has had time to post a top story about a teenager who posted a nude picture of his ex-girlfriend on MySpace. CNN also has the Senator Larry Craig story front and center- not a mention of the new Zogby poll.

So let me recap- bad news about how Americans view the Iraq conflict gets front page coverage. The news that most Americans believe the United States can win is ignored? Just another day for the liberal media, I gather. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Economy Good: Media Disregards Story

The Drudge Report has a front-page headline about the good news from the economy this morning. The headline links to an extensive story in Bloomberg News covering the economic news in detail. But it seems that for the majority of the media, this is not news that they wish to highlight.

While the New York Times did not appear to consider this news as important as the report on the Viriginia Tech shootings, they did place a link to a short summary of the news on their front page in the 'Other News' section. On the other hand, CNN has so far not even mentioned the good economic news. ABC News has the Chinese toy-recall story placed prominently on their main page, but also seems to have missed the economic news as of 0825 hours Pacific time.

As for the other major news networks, MSNBC does have a link on their front page, stating the 4 percent growth that is the heart of the eceonomic report. Unlike the times, MSNBC did consider the economic news to be one of their top stories.

CBS News considered the Virginia Tech report, a story on an audit of Iraqi leaders and a record temperature in Phoeniz all important enough to be top stories. However, as of 0832 Pactiic time this morning, one had to scroll down to 'Economic News' in order to discover that Economy Grows Despite Housing Woes. There is not a single mention of the 4 percent growth numbers.

Fox News has a link under "Latest news' that announces the 4 percent growth numbers. Surprisingly for a "right-wing" news outlet, Fox also do not have these numbers as their main headline- that honor was reserved for the GAO Iraq progress report and a story on Senator Hillary Clinton's Chinese money. However, their story was fairly detailed, unlike that of the New York Times.

All in all, it seems that the New York Times, ABC, Fox and MSNBC found the economic news worthy of reporting in some manner, though none of them made it their leading story. However, CNN did not even have a link and CBS buried it as far as they could. One would almost think that the media had some interest in not reporting this news. It is a pity that good news does not get the same press as bad news, but then it would seem that as long as George W. Bush occupies the White House that the media in this country will do their utmost to downplay any postitives.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters. Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Religious Censoring: Editors Admit Bias

It is becoming ever more obvious that the press treats cartoons poking fun at Islam in a much different manner than those poking fun at any other religion. One might even say there is a double standard, and why not, since the media themselves acknowledges that it is true.

After running a warning to the client newspapers about the content of Berke Breathed's Sunday cartoon 'Opus', comics editor Amy Lago said,

"The strip came in and I knew we would have to send out an alert to all the newspapers," Lago said. "I do that fairly regularly with materials that might pose issues for local areas. ... We knew that because it was a sex joke, it could raise issues. And there is another client that has issues with any Muslim depiction whatsoever." ... But she did alert newspapers about the Muslim-themed cartoon because there was a question about whether Muslim readers would be offended. "I don't necessarily think it's poking fun [at Islam]," Lago said. "But the question with Muslims is, are they taking it seriously?"

 

So apparently flagging potentially offensive cartoons is "standard practice"? No, it is only for Muslim-themed cartoons- Christian, Jewish and [insert religion of choice here] apparently don't warrant this practice no matter how offensive they may be perceived as being. A case in point is the fact that one week before the censored 'Opus' cartoon, the same cartoonist wrote an 'Opus' strip which lampooned deceased Christian leader Jerry Falwell in terms at least as strong as the Islamic strip. Not only were no warnings sent out regarding that strip, no newspaper apparently felt the need to worry about its (mostly Christian) readers' reactions.

Speaking in regards to the recent decision of the Washington Post and several other newspapers not to run cartoonist Berkeley Breathed's 'Opus' strip due to concerns about how Muslims might view it, King Syndicate editor Brendon Burford said of his competitors,

As far as whether the Post and the Post Writers Group syndicate treated content about conservative Christians differently than it did content about conservative Muslims, it certainly could be taken that way. "It appears on the surface to be a double standard," Burford said, "but at the same time, the climate of the world probably informs their decision with how to go forward with it."

 

I see. So "the climate of the world" is what they take into account when determining what cartoons to censor. Whatever happened to the First Amendment that reporters like to hold up anytime something offensive to Christians is published, or when reporters like Eric Lichtblau and James Risen bend the law in order to warn our enemies about secret programs designed to protect us? I suspect that this is reporter-speak for "they were afraid of Muslims, since only Muslims have a propensity to kill people with whom they disagree".

It would appear that there is indeed a double standard- and journalists are among the forefront of those pushing for a new dhimmitude. Too bad they can't seem to understand that the very forces they are trying so hard to appease now are the same forces that hold the least respect for their most dearly-held beliefs.

Gonzalez Gone

According to the new York Times, Attorney general Albert Gonzales has resigned as of Sunday night. The Times lead it story by writing,

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. He is expected to announce the decision to reporters at 10:30 Eastern time this morning in Washington.

As noted by the guys at Power Line, "False accusations of perjury, made largely by the Times itself.". This is too true And even the Times may have realized its role in promoting the non-scandal of the fired United States attorneys, as it found an anonymous official to say

The official who disclosed the resignation today that the turmoil over Mr. Gonzales had made his continuing as attorney general difficult. “The unfair treatment that he’s been on the receiving end of has been a distraction for the department,” the official said.

This is unfortunatley true, and the unfari treatment mentioned by this un-named official largely emanated from the media such as the Times itself. The Times's treatment was ably buttressed and supported by the pontifications of such partisan hacks as personified byu such individuals as Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy. These partisans had their own takes on Gonzales' resignation, and the media was only too happy to quote them. Kennedy was reported to have said

"He has exhibited a lack of candor with Congress and the American people and a disdain for the rule of law and our constitutional system. I strongly urge President Bush to nominate a new attorney general who will respect our laws and restore the integrity of the office." — Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

"Respect our laws and restore the integrity of the office"? Mr. Gonzales never ignored a court order as did Janet Reno. Nor did he conspire with local officials to cover up what might have led to manslaguther charges, as did Kennedy himself. Yet Kennedy has no qualms about making these over-the-top claims, knowning as he does that the national mediua largley exists as an echo chamber for ideas beloved by the Democratic Party and their allies on the political left. It is more to the shame of the media that they report accusations such as this than it is to the poltiicians who make them.

In any event, I have beeen no fan of the Gonzamez Jusitce Department. I believe that he has shown no real flair for the job and he has made a number of mis-steps in defending his agency to the hostile party hacks in Congress. But like former Senator John Ashcroft before him, I believe that Gonzales was unfairly demonized by the Democratic Party and their friends in the press. I wish Mr. Gonzales good luck in his future endeavors, and thank him for his service to his country.

Hat tip to Power Line.