America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

Operation “Can You Hear Us Now?”

Across the US today and tomorrow, Tea Partiers and 912’ers will rally once again. Only this time, what the Democrats call the “Angry Mob” will get the media coverage that’s been lacking when they gathered previously.

That’s because Operation “Can You Hear Us Now?” won’t take place at Capitols or city parks. Planners of this rally chose to take the message to the mainstream media since the media won’t come to them. These rallies will be held on the doorsteps of left-wing media outlets across the country. Reporters, anchors, and management will have a hard time ignoring the masses as they gather beneath their office windows. When they have to push through the crowd on their way out the door, they’ll no longer be able to turn a blind eye to the frustration of millions of Americans.

This is the website organizers set up where you can find more information and here’s a list of all planned events. Be sure to check the list, because most are planned for Saturday, but a few will be held today, Friday October 16.

Join the crowds and make your voice be heard!

October 16, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media | , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Omnipresent Obama

by Brent Bozell at Townhall.com

Following his usual mantra that “to watch me is to love me,” Barack Obama appeared on five Sunday interview shows and since that wasn’t enough, then the David Letterman show on Monday night. He remains convinced that the more he plays dust speck in the national eye, the further he’ll get in passing his leftist agenda. He’s also confident our media won’t hold him accountable. They just hold him.

“I can’t tell you how satisfying it is to watch you work!” a beaming Letterman gushed to Obama. Even during that show, Letterman was still whacking away at George W. Bush as an idiot, unctuously currying favor with the new president. Letterman doesn’t pretend to be an objective journalist, of course. But can you recall him ever voicing his satisfaction with conservatives?

Perhaps the most amazing thing Obama did — over and over — on Sunday was to scold the media for making the national dialogue coarser by allowing his critics to have a voice on the networks. “Let’s face it, the easiest way to get on television right now is to be really rude,” he said.

Obama should be embarrassed. This is amateurish and silly (if I say so rudely). It’s also a broken record. When Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were in office, nasty demonstrators — even rioters — were celebrated by the left. But when Democrats take control (Clinton, Obama), any criticism becomes angry, hateful, and now racist.

More

September 23, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media, Obama | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Islam on the March in D.C.

by Robert Knight at Townhall.com

If past media coverage is any gauge, America is about to get a giant, mushy Hallmark card on behalf of Islam on Friday, September 25. That’s the day of the Islam on Capitol Hill rally, which organizers estimate will attract 50,000 Muslims to Washington, D.C.

Hassen Abdellah, president of Dar-ul-Islam, and a main organizer, told the Washington Post that the event was inspired by President Obama’s inaugural address and his speech in Cairo, Egypt in June. The latter was where Obama noted that Islam was “first revealed” in the Middle East, thus implying divine origin. He may have also inspired some Muslims when he told journalists in Turkey in April that America “is not a Christian nation.” The event’s Website proclaims in large block letters: Our Time Has Come.

It will be instructive to compare media coverage to the virtual blackout of the Sept. 12 rally of hundreds of thousands who gathered at the Capitol to protest high taxes, the proposed health care takeover and the rest of the Obama-Pelosi leftist agenda.

More

September 19, 2009 Posted by | Obama | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NY Times softer on Obama’s civilian casualties

What a difference a couple of years (and a new President) make in the headlines of the NY Times. Two stories, two years apart, telling similar stories. One is dated May 13, 2007, the other May 7, 2009. Both stories detail the precarious situation for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan resulting from mounting civilian casualties, but one headline is far more benign than the other. Can you guess which story is the former, and which is the latter?

Civilian Deaths Undermine Allies’ War on Taliban

High Civilian Toll Seen in U.S. Raid in Afghanistan

Notice how the second headline intentionally omits the word “death,” opting instead for the less graphic “toll.” Also note that nothing in the second creates a vision of the strain placed on US and allied forces as civilians perish, though the first conjures up the idea of a practically unwinnable battle.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, the second article was published today with Obama as Commander-in-Chief, the first was written when Bush occupied the Oval Office.

The obvious bias that softened the NY Times coverage of civilian casualties is further illustrated by the prose buried in the articles, both co-written by Carlotta Gall.

The earlier article was written in response to “scores of civilian deaths over the past months” while the second follows on the heels of American airstrikes that “had killed dozens and perhaps more than 100 civilians” in one village in one day. Though the more massive, destructive, and deadly one day bombardment would almost certainly provoke a much greater fury than the smaller attacks spread across several months, the headlines give the opposite impression. A villager described the more recent attacks saying, “It would scare a man if he saw it in a dream.” From the earlier story, ” ‘We are not saying that the foreigners should leave or stay, we are just saying they should not do this,’ said a farmer, Fateh Muhammad, 55, gesturing with his scythe at an enormous bomb crater and his neighbor’s collapsed house. He showed the place where two of his neighbors had been killed in a field nearby.

Comparing these two quotes, most would certainly expect the latest story to follow the more emotional headline. But there’s more.

From the earlier story, “Since the beginning of March at least 132 civilians have been killed in at least six bombings or shootings, according to officials. The actual number of civilians killed is probably higher,* since the areas of heaviest fighting, like the southern province of Helmand, are too unsafe for travel and many deaths go unreported and cannot be verified.” In the more recent article, “American airstrikes that Afghan officials and villagers said Wednesday had killed dozens and perhaps more than 100 civilians…If the higher toll proves true,* the bombardment, which took place late Monday, will almost certainly be the worst in terms of civilian deaths since the American intervention began in 2001.” (emphasis added)*

Notice the difference of the approach taken in these two articles, by the same reporter.

Under President Bush, the Times’ reporter assumed the death toll was higher than reported, but went out of her way to imply the number of civilians killed under President Obama was lower than reported. The first article also claims “nearly half” the civilian deaths in airstrikes on one village were women and children, but the second makes no mention of women and children among the dead.

I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to believe that an attack on a village resulting in such a huge number of dead civilians somehow managed to avoid killing any women and children.

It’s clear this reporter now writes in a completely different tone than she did when Bush was President, and it’s also apparent the Times’ editors now put a different spin on similar stories with their headlines.


Note: In no way should this article be construed as a criticism of US or allied forces in Afghanistan. As a USMC veteran, I realize and understand that collateral damage occurs in any war. I also firmly believe that anytime US forces are placed in harm’s way, such collateral damage should not in any way reflect badly on them. This article is solely intended to shed light on the obvious bias present at the supposedly objective NY Times.

May 6, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Remember when the media wasn’t dominated by the left…

#TCOT #diggcons

Posted on (It’s about my e-mail naming habits.)

If the D-Day Invasion were reported by today’s media:

June 6, 1944. -NORMANDY, FRANCE-

Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America’s invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was running high. “We are dying for no reason,” said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. “Americans can’t even shoot straight. I never thought I’d say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler.”

…(Read full article)

Sad, but very likely true.

January 11, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another case of liberal bias in MSM

Article posted on All-American Blogger

Great article pointing out, yet again, the obvious liberal bias in the MSM.


2001: Bush Talking Down the Economy for Political Reason? 2009: Obama Sounds Dire Warning on Economy

 

President-elect Barack Obama hit the airwaves and sounded a Chicken Little-esque warning to the American people:

“If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.”

“This is a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime,” he said in a speech in Virginia.

…(Read full article)

January 10, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MSNBC Propaganda War on Israel


Digg!
#TCOT #diggcons

To be expected, but revolting nonetheless.  Here’s the headline for the story about the Israeli attack on a UN girls’ school in Jebaliyah, Gaza.

Israeli strike kills dozens near Gaza school

Some quotes from the article designed to instill hatred of Israel in readers:

Israeli mortar shells exploded a U.N. school where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge on Tuesday, killing at least 36 Palestinians.

The carnage added to a surging civilian toll that has drawn increasingly urgent calls for a halt to Israel’s offensive against Hamas.

The three mortar shells that crashed down on the perimeter of the U.N. school struck at mid-afternoon, when many people in the densely populated camp were out and about. Many of those who took shelter in the school apparently had stepped outside to get some air, thinking an area around a school was safe.

“There’s nowhere safe in Gaza. Everyone here is terrorized and traumatized,” John Ging, head of Gaza operations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Whew! If I didn’t know any better (about Israel’s history or MSNBC’s radical left-wing bias) I’d be hating Israel after all of that. Especially when the one paragraph in the first 80% of the article that gives the Israeli side of the story ends with unnamed Palestinian witnesses refuting the IDF account.

Israel’s military said its shelling was a response to mortar fire from within the school, pressing its assertion that Hamas militants are using civilians as cover. Two residents of the area who spoke by telephone to the Associated Press said they saw a handful of militants firing mortar shells from a street near the school.

Even the last part of the article is worded to instill doubt in readers of the Israeli version of events, and the final sentence will boil the blood of the uninformed.

Among the dead were many children whose parents wailed in grief at a hospital filled with dead and wounded. Fifty-five were wounded in the attack, the U.N. said.

Notably missing from the article is the fact that Hamas is known to use UN facilities to escape Israeli fire and those who seek shelter there as human shields. The following video shows Hamas firing rockets from a school in 2007! But a UN official is quoted in the article stating that UN staff “work to prevent militants from entering” the school.

This video was uploaded to YouTube in November, 2007. You’d think MSNBC would have been able to find it and understand the likelihood that the Israeli version is the correct one. Of course, they might have if their agenda wasn’t already designed to demonize Israel and minimize the culpability of the terrorists who intentionally draw Israeli fire to such areas for propaganda value.

I’ve been following developments in this story since it broke this morning, but held off reporting on it to get a more accurate picture. It should be known that virtually every MSM outlet at first ran headlines similar to MSNBC when it first broke. However, many of those other sources have since toned down the obvious anti-Israeli slanted headlines like the one still running on the MSNBC site.  CNN is running a much more toned down title, Israel: Hamas mortars prompted attack near U.N. school.

You can read more of the official Israeli response to the disinformation presented by MSNBC at Israelpolitik.org.


Digg!


Related Posts

About that Israeli strike on the UN “school”–Michelle Malkin

Hamas Leaders Exploit Israeli Honor, Hide in Hospital Disguised as Doctors and Nurses–All American Blogger

January 6, 2009 Posted by | Liberal Media, Middle East | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments