Duke Lacrosse Accuser Crystal Mangum Charged With Murder

Boy has this chick come back to bite the lamestream media in the ass:

It was a tiny item in the New York Times -- a brief at the bottom of page B14 of Tuesday's sports section, under Lacrosse: “Crystal Mangum, who falsely accused three Duke players of raping her in 2006, was charged with murder in the death of her boyfriend.” The man died two weeks after Mangum stabbed him, and Mangum has now been charged with murder.


The Times may prefer to forget that name, but it was far more interested in Crystal Mangum back in 2006. More than any other media outlet, the Times trumpeted her rape accusations against three Duke lacrosse players, accusations that quickly fell apart in a mass of contradictions and shifting stories.


Yet even as the case fell apart and other liberal media outlets were backing away, the Times issued a now-notorious, error-riddled 5,000-word lead story by Duff Wilson on August 25, 2006, concluding that there was enough evidence against the players for Michael Nifong, the soon-to-be-disgraced-and-jailed local prosecutor, to bring the case to trial:


By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury.


Perhaps most atrocious was former columnist Selena Roberts, who made a habit of slurring the innocent Duke lacrosse players. Even after the players had been all but formally cleared of the sexual assault, she continued to blame white privilege: “Don't mess with Duke, though. To shine a light on its integrity has been treated by the irrational mighty as a threat to white privilege. Feel free to excoriate the African-American basketball stars and football behemoths for the misdeeds of all athletes, but lay off the lacrosse pipeline to Wall Street, excuse the khaki-pants crowd of SAT wonder kids.”

via politikditto.com

it is very hard for men to protect themselves from women whose testimony is full of contradictions. the media and liberal judges don't do a thing when a woman commits perjury.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

I'm starting to think that the college #Gaza and #BDS crowd needs a #Playboy Bunny, #HelenThomas ain't working

Helen Thomas to Playboy: Let Me Clarify:
Jews Control White House,
Congress, Financial Markets

...as being just as ugly inside as she is on the outside:

Of course I don't condone any violence against anyone. But who wouldn't fight for their country? What would any American do if their land was being taken? Remember Pearl Harbor. The Palestinian violence is to protect what little remains of Palestine. The suicide bombers act out of despair and desperation. Three generations of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes – by Israelis – and into refugee camps."

Yes, she really compares terrorists blowing up an ice cream parlor filled with kids to Americans fighting in the Pacific in World War II.
And that's only a tiny part of this interview that exposes Thomas as a thoroughly despicable human being, and those who defend her as being hypocrites of the highest order.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

....and  please don't send these fat college girls to Gaza.
They will only get fatter.

Veteran reporter Helen Thomas turned up in Playboy magazine this month (fully clothed, don’t worry) as part of her ongoing anti-Semitic publicity tour.
The former “dean” of the White House Press Corps sat down for an interview (link is to the Sun Herald’s summary) about her recent controversy. First she weighed in on the aftermath of her remarks about Israel last May (“I went into self-imposed house arrest”) and her views on the situation in the Palestinian territories (“the Palestinians have been shortchanged in every way”). But then the interview took an uglier turn.
“Of course I don’t condone any violence against anyone,” said Thomas, when asked about Palestinian terrorism against the Israelis. “But who wouldn’t fight for their country? What would any American do if their land was being taken? Remember Pearl Harbor. The Palestinian violence is to protect what little remains of Palestine. The suicide bombers act out of despair and desperation.”
Thomas also took a shot at Holocaust-remembrance programs, insisting that Jews exploited the memory in order to persecute Palestinians. “There’s nothing wrong with remembering [the Holocaust], but why do we have to constantly remember? We’re not at fault,” said Thomas, adding, “Do the Jews ever look at themselves? Why are they always right? Because they have been oppressed throughout history, I know. And they have this persecution. That’s true, but they shouldn’t use that to dominate.”
And in case there’s anyone out there who’s still unsure about Thomas’s true feelings toward the Jewish people, she clarified them later in the interview.
“[The Jews are] using their power, and they have power in every direction,” she said. “Power over the White House, power over Congress. … Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood.  Same thing with the financial markets. There’s total control.”
Thomas then looked at the interviewer and asked, “You don’t deny that. You’re Jewish, aren’t you?”
The 90-year-old reporter’s worldview, in fact, seems to be clouded with an obsession over who is a Jew. When asked about her views on Congress, Thomas simply listed off the names of Jewish lawmakers and intoned that they would be anti-Arab. “Do you think [Chuck] Schumer and [Rep. Ileana Ros-] Lehtinen — whatever her name is — in Florida are going to be pro-Arab?” she asked. “No. But they’re going to be very influential. Eric Cantor, the majority leader of the Republicans, do you think he’s going to be for the Arabs? Hell no! I’m telling you, you cannot get 330 votes in Congress for anything that’s pro-Arab. Nothing.”
Thomas’s comments are indicative of an extremely disturbed and damaged person. But even as she shoots off textbook anti-Semitic canards, she vigorously denies that she’s anti-Jewish.
“I think they’re wonderful people,” she says of the Jews. “They had to have the most depth. They were leaders in civil rights. They’ve always had the heart for others but not for Arabs, for some reason. I’m not anti-Jewish; I’m anti-Zionist.”
Not everyone who calls himself an anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic. But there are many, many anti-Semites, like Thomas, who hide behind the façade of anti-Zionism. And the fact that she was able to do this while in the spotlight for so many years makes one worry for the state of the media.

via commentarymagazine.com

YouTube Censors Fogel family from Itamar

The government released the photos on Saturday night. Within hours, the social activism website My Israel posted a short video of the photographs on YouTube along with the names and ages of the victims.

Within two hours YouTube removed the video.

Obviously YouTube managers are not interested in being held responsible for someone noticing that genocidal Jew hatred defines Palestinian society - and the Arab world as a whole. But they really have no reason to be concerned. Even if they had allowed the video to be posted for more than an hour, it wouldn't have made a difference.

via carolineglick.com

This is from YNet:

Israel is demanding an apology from CNN over its coverage of Saturday's terrorist attack in Itamar claiming it was "tendentious and deceptive." Government Press Office director Oren Helman sent a letter to CNN's Bureau Chief Kevin Flower saying he was astonished at the network's coverage of the ruthless attack. A CNN website report avoided describing the event as a terror attack, noting that the Israel Defense Forces consider it an act of terrorism. "Only you decided to use the term terrorist attack in quotation marks, as if this were not necessarily the case," Helman wrote. "There is a limit to the extent of objectivity regarding such a horrific deed." . . .

But al-Beeb's report is just as bad.

The BBC also referred to the terrorist as an intruder in its report. "The family - including three children - were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home, Israeli media reported," the BBC reported Saturday. Readers might deduce the family members died in a failed burglary attempt.

This is not the first time that Israel has had a run-in with CNN. In fact, Fox News got in here during the Oslo War, because CNN's coverage was so biased that the government wanted to provide Israelis with an alternative (they almost threw CNN out altogether, but relented and decided to just let Fox in).

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

CNN... sigh.  A statement released by the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades took responsibility for the killings, describing the slaughter of the Fogel family as a "natural response" to "Israeli crimes."

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Reuters handles public relations for Palestinians

A statement released by the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades took responsibility for the killings, describing the slaughter of the Fogel family as a "natural response" to "Israeli crimes." The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is part of Fatah which is run by Palestinian Authority President Abbas. In other words it was an official act of the Palestinian Authority.

In an appalling example of bias and selective reporting known in propaganda studies as card stacking, Reuters correspondent Dan Williams rushes in to provide PR for Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas as he feigns horror at the slaughter of a Jewish family over the weekend:

(Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Monday the killing of a Jewish settler couple and three of their children was "inhuman," telling Israel he was determined to help catch those responsible.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had complained that Abbas's administration insufficiently condemned the attack and even encouraged such bloodshed through "incitement" in official Palestinian forums.
"This was inhuman and immoral. We deplore this incident, without a doubt. It is an abomination," Abbas told Israel Radio.
"I can't imagine a four-month-old child murdered," he said, speaking in Arabic. "Children, of all things ... Any person who has a sense of humanity would be pained and driven to tears by such sights."

At the same time Abbas was crying crocodile tears for the children who had their throats cut, his political party was officially celebrating the murder of 37 Israelis, including 13 children, with the naming of a town square after the Palestinian terrorist who led the attack.
Two years ago, Abbas personally congratulated the family of Palestinian Samir Kuntar for his release in a prisoner exchange with Israel.  Kuntar murdered three Israelis including a father and his 4-year-old daughter whose skull Kuntar had crushed with the butt of a gun.
While Williams is quick to parrot Abbas' purported sympathy for murdered children, the Reuters correspondent is oddly silent on Abbas' long record of sympathy for Palestinian child murderers.

via r-mew.blogspot.com
image via nppa.org

...and this is just Reuters. What do you thing is going on at CNN and MSNBC... or for that matter NPR?

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Clinton: 'Lebanese Armed Forces are professional and non-sectarian'

Hillary Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday that the Lebanese Armed Forces are 'professional and non-sectarian' and therefore the US should continue its assistance to them - despite the fact that Hezbullah is about to become the country's ruling party.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

She really wants control, but these are forces even Hitlery can not pull the strings with.

Hillary Clinton: America is Losing An Information War to Al Jazeera

Notice that Hillary is asking for money for public media aka propaganda. Do you really trust Obama to create the rhetoric? There are plenty of Pro American voices being heard. Perhaps it is just that the voice being heard doesn't trust Hillary and enablers of Jihad?

From Accuracy in Media‘s Don Irvine:
Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton appeared before the U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities Committee yesterday, stating that counter to our history we are are now “losing an information war” to other countries.
Clinton also told the committee that private media isn’t up to the task of fighting the information war:

“Our private media cannot fill that gap. In fact our private media, particularly cultural programming often works at counter purposes to what we truly are as Americans and what our values are.  I remember having an Afghan general tell me that the only thing he thought about Americans is that all the men wrestled and the women walked around in bikinis because the only TV he ever saw was Baywatch and World Wide Wrestling.”

Full story and video here.

via allamericanblogger.com

Hitlery is a common way of adressing Hillary Clinton. via urbandictionary.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Can you explain this?

Everyone and their dog have been kind enough to send me this lovely video….

Any thoughts on how it was achieved?

via richardwiseman.wordpress.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

How the Internet Destroyed American Politics

Politicians have realized that by lowering the barriers to political involvement they can attract people who otherwise wouldn't care. And so we have an entire class of people who are involved in politics because they think Obama's posters look cool or because they're angry that Sarah Palin's daughter almost won Dancing with the Stars. Call them the Alvin Greene vote. They don't understand a single issue, not even the dimmest populist ones, but they are emotionally involved with the image that the candidates project. They vote based on Saturday Night Live skits or what they hear on The View. Often young and dumb, for politicians they're an important target group. And they make up an increasingly large share of media consumers.

the internet has eroded the firewall between the American political process and the rest of the world. The damage that Soros and Assange have been able to do to America should be a wake-up call in that regard.

A lot of the world feels it should have a say in American elections, and 2008 was the first time they got a say. It will probably not be the last.

We don't know how much foreign money Obama received in 2008, but it's safe to say that this will continue to be a problem, and without rigid legal accountability, this will become a pattern in future elections. With every candidate soliciting online donations, it becomes all too easy for money to trickle in from abroad. Accountability may close that door part of the way, but not all the way, because too many 501c's also have an impact on the political process. As do many groups that are not directly involved in elections, but do play a part and can legally receive money from overseas. It will take hard work to insulate the American political process from foreign donations. And with the rise of foreign exchange trading and online gambling interests based overseas who work through American front companies, that may no longer be possible.

And foreign money is the least of the problem. With social media playing such a major role, foreign campaigners will become ubiquitous. The Obama campaign benefited from a social media network that was often very "international". In the age of the internet, it becomes all too easy to run phone banks out of Gaza, raise money in Moscow and have stories that shake up the campaign appear in The Guardian. When enough of the campaign is being outsourced, it becomes impossible to regulate or track who does or says what on the internet. And that means anti-American candidates for public office now have a base of support that they can rely on. It worked for Obama. But it won't end there.

The only thing that could avert this would be if such conduct were viewed as scandalous, but the media is unlikely to treat the outsourcing of a campaign as scandalous, unless it's done by a candidate they don't like. Which means punishing a politician for his politics, rather than his actions, another reminder of why the media cannot be trusted to vet candidates or do anything but act as cheerleaders for their man or woman.

The internet is international and it is internationalizing American elections. We are now told which candidate has international approval. We have campaign rallies overseas. We have money coming in from abroad and unofficial campaign volunteers operating abroad. And that is only be the beginning.

Technology has erased distance, and that means the end of all forms of isolation, privacy and integrity. It has also erased standards and barriers. It is up to us to try and create new standards in the age of the internet. If we fail to do this, then the medium will go on dictating the message.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

Two Constant Mistakes of the Mass Media: Dictatorships Do not Dictate; Almost Eveyrone's a Moderate

Want to get along with Iran or Syria? Allegedly, be nice to the Iranian and Syrian regimes if at all possible, praise and flatter them.

via rubinreports.blogspot.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

NJ Transit Worker Fired for Burning Koran Pages

No doubt the ACLU and other free speech groups will be rushing to this man's defense, no? And since when do newspapers label someone a radical in such circumstances?

A radical who burned pages from the Koran outside a planned mosque near Ground Zero was fired from his job at NJ Transit, sources and authorities confirmed.
Derek Fenton, an 11-year employee at NJ Transit, was fired Monday, the agency said in a statement, two days after he was photographed burning the Koran.

Who knew public employees were kept on such a short leash? Heck, teacher's union goons wished death upon Governor Christie and they still all have jobs.

Fenton's hate-filled display occurred during a protest against the mosque on the ninth anniversary of Sept. 11.

When someone burns an American flag are they hate-filled radicals or just people exercising free speech?
When SEIU thugs storm people's houses and they beat up tea partiers they all get to keep their jobs. Why such selective justice in this case?

via jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com

Guardian UK and Print Media: Anti-Semitism for profit

A disturbing trend has been developing over the past few years. One in which vile anti-Semitic rhetoric can be found coursing through the comments section of articles on Israel or Jewish subjects in almost any mainstream media publication.
I first noticed the trend in the blog section of the British publication the Guardian UK. There the Guardian seems to have made it one of its main objectives to delegitimize the existence of Israel, and subsequently demonizes anybody that dares to support Israel. Its modus operandi is the application of the new anti-Semitism, which can be identified by two primary factors:

1. It projects traditional anti-Semitic tropes onto Israel (the Jew of the world), that insinuate that they magically control the media or politicians (in Israel’s case, control the American government), portray them as Nazis, or as being driven solely by greed or their hunger for money
2. The coverage and criticism of Israel is extremely disproportionate to that of other nations in similar situations or just as newsworthy for other reasons

For a separate blog post on this subject, see Israel, Europe and the New Anti-Semitism
For the most part, the Guardian was the only mainstream publication that took such bold steps to use the new anti-Semitism in mainstream blogs. It did not, however, allow its journalists to use it in regular articles, thereby being able to claim that the opinions expressed in the blog section known as Comment is Free were not necessarily their own, while still being able to promote their political agenda. The comments section of these blogs are a cesspool of barely veiled anti-Semitic sentiment. And the Guardian does little to discourage this discourse. It was so bad that a group of activists set up a monitoring website to document the anti-Semitic comments and the Guardian’s lack of actions to stop it, known as CiF Watch.
Over the course of the past two years, the phenomenon of anti-Semitic discourse in the comments sections of articles in mainstream publications has grown dramatically. All of the sudden one can find them in places like the New York Times, CNN, even the Wall Street Journal. Another location which this phenomenon has become particularly notable is the Huffington Post. It got so bad there that another activist setup a website to expose this activity in the blog The Brothers of Judea. Previously known as The Huffington Post Monitor. [Editor's note: the new site is actually called Huffington Post Monitor, not the other way around]
One of the driving questions has been why would all of these seemingly respectable mainstream publications tolerate openly anti-Semitic dialogue in their comments section. They all too often seem willing to allow it to take place unmoderated. I personally experienced this on numerous occasions in the Huffington Post. One in which the word “Zionist” was used by one of the moderators as an insult. Which is discussed in a piece I wrote titled Zionist as a Racial Slur.
There are a few theories which try to explain why respectable publications allow this dialogue to take place. One popular view has it that it has to do with profitability. It’s no secret that the international media is in crisis mode, with no small number of publications struggling for their existence. It seems that the international press has not managed to transition into a profitable online model and find it difficult to make money. The business model of online advertising works on the basis of what is known as click-through rates (CTR). The more traffic (clicks) a publication can get on their website, the more money (or advertisers) they can draw. If you can show advertisers that you have traffic, they’ll pay money to advertise on your website.
And while articles on Israel are a magnet for traffic (it’s a subject everybody seems to want to read about, otherwise the media wouldn’t write about it so much), it seems that anti-Semitic discourse is what keeps them clicking. Whether due to anti-Israel activists (including 1 billion Muslims worldwide) who delight in Israel bashing, Israelis or Jews looking to defend Israel, good peace-loving folk that have somehow been convinced that Israel is the source of all evil in the world, or just regular passers-by that have a penchant for the gruesome, much like the gapers delay that builds up after an accident on the highway. Online publications seem to have decided that it is in their interest to let this discourse take place, rarely if ever interfering. Because in the end its profitable, and they’ve experienced no backlash from this practice.
Indeed, the mainstream media is all too aware of the offensive comments, and enable this offensive, even racist dialog take place because it brings traffic.

via cifwatch.com

Who Are the Real Bigots

The same "courageous" activists of the press, who are busy scribbling and babbling their condemnations of American bigotry-- quietly censored themselves when it came to standing up for freedom of speech against the cartoon beheaders. Because while they might lie to the public about being afraid of the Tea Party Movement or the Ground Zero Mosque protesters, they can't lie to themselves. When the door is closed, and the shades are drawn, and it's just them and their Mac Book Pro, it's not the Tea Party they're afraid of. It's Ahmed and his axe.

In March, the same New York Times which has been going on a tear about any resistance to the Ground Zero Mosque, described the timing of the Huvra rebuilding as "unfortunate" and quoted Muslims who were worried that from certain angles, the synagogue would appear to be taller than some mosque (a no-no for infidels under Islamic law). The LA Times equated the rebuilding of the synagogue with "extremism". Reuters quoted ominous warnings about the synagogue being part of an effort to "Judaize", Jerusalem. The media did not angrily condemn Muslims for their intolerance of the rebuilding of an ancient Jewish house of worship. But that is the double standard. And it is part of the reason why people are so upset.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

In 2001 (the year of 9/11), there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents [in America] as there were anti-Muslim, according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim incidents by at least 6 to 1.

Undeterred by facts, these same academics offered spirited defenses of the "moderate" ground zero mosque Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf -- who called America an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks and said Osama Bin-Laden was "made in the USA".  What they rarely revealed is that their conception of a Muslim "moderate" is defined on a spectrum utterly alien to their American audience.

The prominent Egyptian sheikh, Yusuf al-Qardawi, sits at the center of the academics' spectrum.  According to mosque supporter Marc Lynch, associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, Qardawi is a practitioner of wastataniyya or "centrism" and "a barometer of Muslim opinion."  Esposito likewise calls Qardawi a "reformist".  Rauf says the sheikh is "the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today."

The problem: Qardawi, as a "reformist" and exemplar of "centrist" Islam has said, for instance, that "[Hitler] put the Jews in their place," that homosexuality is an "abominable practice" which warrants the death penalty, and that women should be genitally mutilated to protect their chastity.  Reassurances of Rauf's moderation ring hollow when this context becomes clear.

Although, according to these academics' definition of the spectrum of Muslim public opinion, one might expect that only fringe voices in the Islamic world would reject the mosque, in reality such prominent Muslims as Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, director-general of Al-Arabiya TV, oppose its construction.  As al-Rashid, perhaps one of the best placed sources for analyzing popular opinion in the Arab-Islamic world, said:

I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a monument or a place of worship that tomorrow may become a source of pride for the terrorists and their Muslim followers.

via americanthinker.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Lebanon Used American Weapons To Attack Israel

“Hezbollah says they’re only armed because the LAF too weak to defend Lebanon, so if we visibly strengthen the LAF then Hezbollah will have to disarm.”
doesn't seem like they are interested or threatened in Hezbollah.

two pictures of LAF soldiers who were on the ground for last week’s cross-border ambush of the IDF. The guns they’re holding are M16’s. Or, as the rifles are better known in the context of Lebanese security assistance, “American-made M16’s:”

[larger] [original link]

[larger] [original link]


Of course, as Foreign Policy gamely notes, you can never be sure. There’s at least a chance that these rifles are M16 knockoffs made by China, Iran, or Pakistan. Security assistance apologists – then – wouldn’t have to explain why we’re supplying the LAF with the specific weapons that they’re using to incite regional conflict. They’d only have to explain why we’re supplying the LAF with cutting-edge weapons while the Lebanese use different weapons – acquired either from our rising hegemonic rivals or from intransigent nuclear rogues – to incite regional conflict.
Now these M113 APC’s, the ones the LAF used to back their ambush?

[larger] [original link]

[larger] [original link]


Those definitely came from us [PDF]:

via mererhetoric.com

Phoenix Airport Bans Fox and CNN

Officials at the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport have caved in to complaints from some passengers that the cable networks were politically biased and have decided to drop the networks from the airport’s television screens.
From AZ Central

via aim.org

most likely it wasn't just Conservatives or Liberals who were complaining.... it probably was everyone. the News has become offensive across the board.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Unemployed Colonialist

the unemployed who complain about not having jobs are now Colonialists

Carlos Slim and the New York Times

L.A. Times to Bump Breaking News

Now maybe these newspapers will learn a little about providing a news slant that reflects the people's concerns and not enable the bad guys... probably not... they will go out of business first

The paper's publisher Eddy Hartenstein struck the deal with News Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch to print the Wall Street Journal’s west coast edition in the plant instead, a spokesperson confirmed.

According to two well-placed individuals, the decision to close the Orange County plant means that the Journal will take up the late print run on the Times’ one remaining plant.

That in turn has meant sacrificing news for the L.A. Times front page. The front page will now close at 6 p.m. instead of 11 p.m. and midnight, as has been the case until now.

Late-breaking news will go into a new supplement section.

The deal to print the Journal has been under discussion by Hartenstein and Murdoch -- who know each other from Hartenstein’s stint at DirectTV -- for some time. The paper already delivers the Journal. And the additional cash it represents apparently required the Times to allow a print run to accommodate the Journal’s late-breaking news.

Had the Times gotten the contract to print the Orange County Register, the printing plant there might not have had to close, and the issue could have been avoided.

None of this was evident in Hartenstein’s announcement on Thursday that late-breaking news would move from the front page to a new section.

In his memo to the staff, Hartenstein spun the decision as part of measures aimed at “streamlining” the paper, with no mention of how this might impact the effectiveness of the paper to report the news.

via aim.org

it is more likely that the Times needs to get a bunch of Corporate sponsors to grease the concerns of these companies right into the editorial. the immediate reaction is that sounds like Capitalism, but to give you an example about having no advertising and only corporate sponsorships you need to look no further then NPR and PBS. News Corp doesn't need Corporate sponsorship because they have advertising that doesn't sway editorial. ironically what we consider to be "left" and "progressive" is just appealing to the internationalist corporations that hate America as much as our worst enemies. just look at GE's former relationship with MSNBC and NBC if you don't get where I am going with this. those liberal newspapers were only liberal when it came to selling the people on self hate. that is the amusing part about all of this... what the dumb lemmings really consider to be liberal is nothing but "public relations". sure sounds good and doesn't offend... and says things like Muslims aren't violent by the Quran, but they are only attempting to make digestible places to control minds to push their products. advertising between the news is less influential then direct sponsors.

Howard Dean, Obama Officials and Dems Support Global Socialism

Yikes! Democrats in league with Socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero? "On January 1, 2010, Spain, which has one of the most anti-Israel governments in Europe, takes over the EU presidency. Socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, an outspoken critic of Israel, has already promised to make the Palestinian issue a center-piece of Spain’s six-month presidency." - from Hudson NY:

Former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said on December 8 that "cooperation" between European socialists and the Democratic Party has "intensified significantly" over the last several years and involves "regular contact" at "Congress, Senate, party and foundation levels." He added that "efforts have been remarkable from both sides." . . . The conference was held in Madrid, Spain under the patronage of Spain's socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, whose pro-homosexual and pro-abortion policies have led to street protests by thousands of supporters of traditional values. Zapatero is also under fire for a jobless rate of nearly 18 percent. . . .

via arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com

funny the way Catholic countries are so in conflict with their own church. kind of like what is going on in Israel with some of those left wing Jews... I have a lot of empathy
Dean called for a "long-term global vision" for the transformation of the global economy and mentioned that disgraced Democratic President Bill Clinton had previously spoken at a meeting of the PES-sponsored Global Progressive Forum. The April 2-3 Global Progressive Forum also featured Robert Borosage of the left-wing group that calls itself the Campaign for America's Future.The Global Progressive Forum is also sponsored by the Socialist International, whose U.S. affiliate, the Democratic Socialists of America, includes long-time backers of Barack Obama.
"Free-market globalization alone cannot achieve social justice," Dean told the PES convention. "What the world needs is a global New Deal." He defined this as a "transition to a low-carbon economy" involving "a major transformation in the patterns of production and consumption." This will include "large-scale investments and mechanisms" to share the costs and the policies, he said. His remarks came on the eve of the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen. Dean never used the words "world government," but did declare that "We need a new institutional framework to govern, manage and monitor implementation."
via arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com
and wow was Copenhagen now a success now? do you really think China, Sudan and the Saudis are ready for socialist training wheels that would stunt their growth?

Everyone is vilifying China on sabotaging the global warming fraud. For what? For operating in their own self interest?
via atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com

In order to bring this about, the PES Congress issued a "Call to Action" urging the imposition of a "global financial transaction tax" that would generate hundreds of billions of dollars and "provide funding for long-term public investments, to finance global development and climate change." As AIM has disclosed, there is a secret plan by left-wing non-governmental organizations to bring about this global tax over the next several months. In another PES document, "A New Direction for Progressive Societies," the group urged a "progressive peace policy" that says "...we fully support the initiative of the US administration in favor of global disarmament" and urges the "deepening [of] transatlantic cooperation with the new US administration."

"It is our profound conviction that we must secure a Global New Deal for a new global order of social justice, equality, sustainable development and democracy," the document concludes. . . . The "Global New Deal" was also the theme of the October "Global Progress Conference" in Madrid, Spain, sponsored by the Center for American Progress, the IDEAS Foundation, and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, an affiliate of the German Green Party. A summary of remarks said that the conference was perceived to be the "starting point for a new global progressive alliance." The Center for American Progress is a George Soros-funded entity run by former Clinton official John Podesta, who co-chaired the Obama-Biden Transition Project.
Obama pollster Benenson has a website which says that he "was the lead pollster and a senior strategist for President Barack Obama during the 2008 election, and he continues in that role today." In addition to Obama and various Democratic Party candidates, elected officials, and campaign organizations, his clients have included the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Brookings Institution, the Soros Foundation, and the Working Families Party, an ACORN front. The Benenson Strategy Group has represented several foreign governments and currently represents British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a prominent advocate of a global tax who is facing re-election in June 2010. Brown's socialist Labor Party is a member of the PES.

via arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com

NWO Anyone?

cowardice is not the only answer

7 factories in China equals all the pollution of American cars. Is this the change you were waiting for? it has been proven that Carbon Emissions do not equal "Green House Warming Effects" anyway, but I am willing to *assume* that there is something toxic about pollution and exhaust that we should be concerned about. Also it is absurd to say 4000 American lives were lost in Iraq without recognizing (1) the lives that were saved internationally and locally in the long term (2) recognizing that not finding WMDS, does not mean we didn't find parts like Nigerian Cake (3) that a war strategy should of been less involved with nation building and more involved in killing and perhaps we are only guilty of being the good guys (4) that the war wasn't ever put into paper by Bush, but was actually a chain reaction to issues that Clinton put on paper. Perhaps if Clinton and the pentagon had planned out a decent attack it might of been different. no doubt we could of had less casualties if we had only occupied oil rich areas with strong bases that pushed civilian populations out. We could of had two resource rich countries the size of Rhode Island right in Iraq and there would of been nothing the Sunni or Shia could of done about it, in fact this is what needs to be done with Iran. you need to put your chips closer together, not spread apart. we fail because now we think cowardice is the only answer. (5) there is no doubt in my mind that if America had taken out Saddam Hussein in the 90s with Clinton then there would of been support. our country put all it's chips on the Israeli Palestine situation and that like now was bound to fail because we were confused into thinking Islam really was the religion of peace, when it says to kill Jews behind trees.