Here’s an exchange between Christopher Knight of the L.A. Times and Andrew Breitbart at the Big Government blog over the ridiculous Christmas tree ornaments the tasteless Obamas allowed to be displayed on the White House Christmas tree. Two thumbs up to Andrew Breitbart in kicking Mr. Knight’s a$$!

by Publius

Over at the L.A. Times today, art critic Christopher Knight went after Big Government for reporting on the White House Christmas tree ornaments and the man, Simon Doonan, tapped to oversee the decorations for the White House. Knight’s objection to Big Government’s coverage of the administration’s decision to inject left-wing politics into the White House Christmas tree begins and ends with the fact that Andy Warhol was the artist behind the particular image of the murderous Communist dictator Mao Zedong featured on one of the ornaments we brought to your attention. Knight’s article is excerpted below followed by Breitbart’s take downs and Knight’s response. Jump in the comments here or head over to the L.A. Times article and join the fray.

“A Warhol Christmas at the White House”
By Christopher Knight, L.A. Times

When it comes to art, the right-wing anti-Obama crowd hasn’t had a very good year. Repeated efforts to gin up outrage in a manufactured culture war have either fallen flat or proved downright embarrassing. (You can see some of them here, here and here.)

The latest fiasco is the Great Christmas Ornament Scandal.

On Tuesday, Andrew Breitbart’sBig Government blog got its knickers in a twist over one of the Obama White House’s myriad Christmas trees. (Big Government is a sibling to Breitbart’s Big Hollywood blog, which cranked up a paranoid fantasy about the National Endowment for the Arts a few months back.) The blaring “EXCLUSIVE” led with a blurry photo of a decoupage Christmas ornament adorned with the face of Chinese Communist dictator, Mao Zedong.

“Of course, Mao has his place in the White House,” Big Government wailed about the GCOS, taking the Obama-as-socialist meme out for a yuletide spin.

Except, it wasn’t exactly Mao. It was Andy Warhol’s “Mao.”

The image is one of a very large series of silkscreen paintings and prints the late Pop artist made of Mao. Warhol’s parody transformed the leader of the world’s most populous nation into a vapid superstar — the most famous of the famous. The portrait photo from Mao’s Little Red Book is tarted up with lipstick, eye-shadow and other Marilyn Monroe-style flourishes.

Read the full article here.

Breitbart/Knight repartee:

Click the link below for the entire exchange:
L.A. Times Art Critic Defends White House Commie-Chic Xmas.

It would seem strange to say that there is a nearly universal orthodoxy within the freethought movement.  Isn’t it the whole point of freethought to throw off the chains of dogmatic orthodoxy especially when it is of the religious kind?  The theory is that nothing is taboo to the freethinker as he considers all possibilities and reason guides his mind as he chooses among these possibilities.  On account of this, one would think that freethought would lead to a wide diversity of opinions on subject matters outside of the rejection of tradition and dogma based on authority.  What is the point of being a freethinker if every freethinker thinks alike?

Alas, that is not always the case.  Yes, I have encountered diverse points of views when I have met other freethinkers until you get to politics.  Then the conversation turns to Republican bashing, capitalism trashing, corporation hating, government loving and all sorts of liberal politics.  Actually, just about ever conversation that I have had with freethinkers inevitably leads in this direction.  You may be talking about music or philosophy one moment and then someone says something negative about George Bush and with a twinkle in his eye someone else is off and running bashing Bush. (For the record, I and many other libertarians are not fans of George Bush – father and son!)  That starts the whole avalanche of conversations that center around how swell it would be if the U.S.  were more like Europe.  Yes, I have met conservative and libertarian freethinkers but we are few and far between.

And it is not just the conversations that I have with other freethinkers.  I have been to Center for Inquiry (CFI) conferences and have attended First Coast Freethought Society (FCFS) meetings over the years and liberal politics often intruded in what I expected to be a discussion of freethought, humanism and alternatives to religion.  I have listened to a CFI conference speaker go into a diatribe against conservative politics even suggesting that conservatives are authoritarian in nature.  I have listen to another CFI conference speaker who actually suggested that we ditch the modern industrial society and return to a more “natural” state.  Of course, this ignores the fact that the modern industrial society has undeniably brought a higher standard of living to the human race.

I also remember a speaker at a FCFS meeting who spoke in support of Social Security.  When I challenged him on the sustainability of Social Security, everyone came out of the woodwork to speak on behalf of this actuarially unsound government program with someone even suggesting that perhaps people would defer retiring and this would save Social Security – something that we can hardly rely upon as Social Security’s red ink overflows its inkwell.  After the meeting ended, someone actually came over and told me that my criticism of Social Security is all that I would be allowed to say!  Not exactly a strong thumbs up for freedom of inquiry!

The reason that I no longer support CFI is that I am quite frankly frustrated with its Office of Public Policy (OPP). While the OPP does hold positions with which I agree, I cannot agree with its positions on global warming, questionable legislation like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and its blatantly pro-Obama position on Senate vetted executive branch nominees. (One wonders whether the OPP would do the same for nominees of a Republican president!).

Then there is the newsletter of the First Coast Freethought Society. I was assistant editor of the newsletter for four years. I remember it when it first was published years before my tenure as assistant editor. At one point, I stopped reading it because I got sick of its liberal politics and attacks upon America. During my tenure, I tried to minimize politics in the newsletter even writing an article on my experiences with neighborhood canvassing for a libertarian Republican political candidate to provide balance to an article extolling the author’s efforts on behalf of Barack Obama.

I have also written rebuttals to blatantly liberal newsletter articles.  For example, I wrote in support of school choice in response to an article that claimed that public schools are necessary for humanism to strive.  Man, you would have thought that I argued for the divinity of Jesus!  People came out of the woodwork to condemn my position in the next newsletter issue.  In response to a recent article in which I rebutted a liberal position on poverty, I was told by critics in the next newsletter issue that I lack imagination and would be voted Most Likely To Be Guillotined when the next French Revolution takes place in America.  And no, that is not the first insulting comment made to me by other freethinkers when they were made aware of my  strong belief in the free market.

Finally, my biggest frustration is with the Humanist Manifestos. It would be hard to find more pro-socialism documents than these three documents. Take for example these excerpts from the Humanist Manifestos:

The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible – Humanist Manifesto I.

It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide – through an international authority that safeguards human rights – massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis – Humanist Manifesto II.

We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life – Humanist Manifesto III.

These manifestos are what irks me the most.  I can live with the fact that freethinkers tend to be liberals.  I do not understand why this is the case since I consider libertarianism to be quite consistent with freethought in that both involve freedom from intrusive institutions within society, i.e. religion and government. But I can live with it.  However, when humanism is defined in a way that mandates that all humanists be political liberals, I feel like an outsider to the current humanist movement.  I tend to subscribe to the humanism of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment in which human affairs are considered to be more important than divine affairs.  But I find socialism to be antithetical to the freedom of individuals to pursue their own dreams with minimal interference from others who use governments to impose their visions of how things should be on the rest of us.

The bottom line is that like the separation of church and state, humanism and freethought need to be separated from liberal politics.  Humanism is a life stance in support of humans solving human problems and not waiting for some god to save them.  It is not a collection of political positions.

ben bernanke has been named person of the year by time magazine. i would say that this is the 2nd most insulting, though having no real impact, event of 2009, the first being our president having been honored with the nobel peace prize. you might ask why, or, who is ben bernanke? in order to understand the former let’s look at the latter. bernanke is the chairman of the federal reserve, layman’s terms – the big bankers’ piggy bank. our current economic crisis cannot be pinned to or blamed on one single man, but the mere thought that this criminal – and brazenly so, be even conjured up in the imagination of anyone as person of the year is beyond my scope of comprehension. but, it shows that all the “conspiritorial” talk of people like myself, that our government and therefore those who support it – i.e. mainstream media, of which time magazine is way up at the top of the ladder in being, are completely controlled by corporate interest – those interests being centered in the fed and stealing and controlling it completely – are in no way conspiritorial. this is reality. there is no “liberal bias” in our media, only the bias of continuing to allow corporate controlled criminals to lord over us. an outlet may slant toward the democratic party (cnn, msnbc) or the republican party (fox), but they work for the same people! this should be crystal clear, but sadly we as a nation are either too caught up in the squabbles they create to keep our eyes off the big picture and to be able to see what is really going on or just plain apathetic and ignorant. WAKE UP. PAY ATTENTION. THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING. ARE YOU OUTRAGED? sign this petition & listen to bernie…

Sarah Palin is the personification of America's anti-intellectualism and seems to be determined to exploit her intellectual limitations at the expense of the nation's best interests.

From time to time, I’ll get into a debate with a right-winger about whether Sarah Palin is actually stupid or if liberals are just hopelessly biased against her. They claim this bias comes from the fact that liberals are scared of her electability, her charm, her looks, her femininity, her Christianity, her ability connect to the common man and her overall wonderfulness. So, the theory is that we have all collectively decided that she is the best Republican candidate in some secret liberal meeting and are conspiring against her because we are afraid of how brilliant and electable she really is.

Now, there are a couple of problems with this theory. There are no opinion leaders on the left with Rush Limbaugh-like authority who can command all other progressives to think the same thing and use the same arguments against one person. In other words, we all think she is stupid because she is in fact stupid, not because some liberal cabal told us to think that.

How come we don’t call Newt Gingrich stupid? Or Dick Cheney or Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or Dennis Hastert? And the list goes on and on of heinous and deplorable right-wingers who are not stupid. We don’t make those charges against those people, because as much as we might not agree with them or like them, we know that they are not dullards. They’re all clever in their own way. Mitt Romney is greasy, Michael Steele is a clown and Tom DeLay is dirty, but we don’t go after their mental acuity like we do with Sarah Palin because they’re not as dumb as her (not even Steele).

So, finally we get to the evidence. I thought I’d just do it here and be done with it. Then I can just point people to this post from now on and end this senseless argument.

Now, there are a million examples of this, but I thought I’d go with three knockout punches here. In the first video, we have the classic Bush Doctrine answer, where she does not know the basic foreign policy of the Republican president at the time. How could she possibly be running for vice president and not know this? The only thing more unconscionable is the sad excuses her supporters make for this terribly botched answer.

In the second video, we have a largely overlooked example of her pathetic lack of foreign policy knowledge. She has no idea what Hamas is or what they have to do with the Gaza Strip. If your next door neighbor or plumber doesn’t know this, that’s fine, but they weren’t running for Vice President of the United States. This should be game set and match for anyone, especially self-respecting conservatives, thinking of supporting her. This is when you have to walk away embarrassed.

But remarkably, they didn’t slink away embarrassed after this answer, so we have the latest example of her buffoonery. In this interview with Bill O’Reilly, he asks her if she is smart enough to be president. Her answer has to be seen to be believed. Don’t get me wrong, just because you see it won’t mean you’ll understand it. So, I put a transcript of her answer below so that you can try to decipher it in your spare time.

Bill O’Reilly: Let me be very bold and fresh again, do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?

Sarah Palin: I believe that I am because I have common sense and I have I believe the values that I think are reflective of so many other American values, and I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the uhm, the ah, a kind of spineless, spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite, Ivy league education and, and a fat resume that is based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans are could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership, I’m not saying that that has to be me.

Can anyone really be biased enough to think that was a smart answer? The great irony is that he asked her if she’s smart enough to be president and she gave what might be her dumbest answer yet. That answer was so bad it almost made George W. Bush look smart. Can anyone in good conscience defend that answer and say with a straight face that she should be this country’s leader?

If you say yes, then there is no sense in talking to one another anymore because we are not operating in the same reality, or planet. We’ll never be able to agree on anything if we can’t agree that was just about as incomprehensible and stupid an answer as you can possibly come up with. And that settles the debate, because you either live in the reality based world and realize she is obviously not qualified, or in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert you believe that “reality has a well-known liberal bias” and she would make a great president.

Cenk Uygur
The Young Turks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

America has always had an anti-intellectual streak that grew as an offshoot of anti-elitism from the colonial days but then took on a life of its own. The common American (even many that are intelligent and successful) dislikes and distrusts intellectuals (being intelligent and being an intellectual are not the same thing). So as a result, Americans gravitate toward leaders who demonstrate a LACK of intellectual rigor and ability, who REJECT structured, deliberate thinking in favor of EMPTY folksy rhetoric. In their minds, intellectuals have had a lot of power for a long time, and the world is still messed up, so let’s give some “common people” a shot. Hence Bush, and now one step further, Palin. ~MDBoyd

Reading an online article on how climate talks in Copenhagen are being disrupted by protests held outside the summit. Apparently causing riots, damage, and violence to the point of having to be teargassed by police is what is deemed necessary and albeit “ok” by the far left in order to get your point across.

Funny, though, I don’t see any left-leaning commentators calling these protesters down – no calling them “air-baggers”, brownshirts, mobs, or likening them to Nazis. I don’t see any commentators speaking on how their anger and shouting means they have no credibility or how their going against the establishment makes them somehow unpatriotic. They instead seem to get the left’s sympathy and support.

Contrast that to what happened here at home. Common everyday citizens including veterans and seniors were insulted, ridiculed, and dismissed for voicing concern over the future of their health care coverage and the rising national debt. They were, arguably, going against the establishment. They were angry, and they shouted, but they were never to the point of needing riot control police. Nor were they ever needing to be teargassed, and yet look at how they were treated. These were not professional protesters who protest almost for the sake of protesting, these were everyday people.

This to me represents the hypocrisy that can be found in the far left, and how quickly they seek to tar and feather even their own fellow American citizens who don’t go along. Not even the Copenhagen protesters have been labelled so disgustingly as what Americans chose to label other Americans in the town halls here at home for simply exercising their constitutional right to speak out, and doing so peacefully and legally.

Now that our leaders have taught us that opposing nationalized health care is supporting slavery, I think it’s pretty clear that high school students should be taught that denying global warming is supporting slavery.  Come to think of it, opposing affirmative action and partial birth abortion is clearly supporting slavery.

I might have difficulty persuading the Senate that rooting for the Yankees constitutes supporting slavery — though that seems more pleasing to me than any of the other innuendos.

The White House lashed out at the Gallup Poll on Tuesday after the survey’s daily tracking numbers showed President Obama’s approval rating dropping to a new low of 47 percent.

Asked for a response to Monday’s tracking poll, which placed Obama’s approval numbers among the lowest of any recent president in December of his first year in office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs mocked the reliability of the widely respected polling firm.

“I tell you, if I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor,” Gibbs said. “If you look back, I think five days ago, there was an 11-point spread, now there’s a 1-point spread. I mean, I’m sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend.”

He added: “I don’t pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it.”

Gallup’s tracking poll showed an uptick in Obama’s numbers last week following his speech outlining a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. But in Monday’s polling release, Gallup’s Jeffrey M. Jones wrote: “Any slight bump in support Obama received coincident with his new Afghanistan policy proved to be very short-lived, as his approval rating returned to below the majority level by the weekend and slipped further to 47 percent in Dec. 4-6 polling.”

POLITICO 44: W.H. mocks Gallup.

Folks it’s easy to see who the ‘children’ are. Obama and his group of immature thugs and tax-cheats can’t even handle the decline in his approval ratings. Gallup has always, and still is higher on the numbers than most polling outfits.

While fine-tuning my god-like physique at a small local gym that broadcasts CNN news on its several TVs on a 24/7 basis, my eye caught another riveting rerun of the high-society party crashers who invited themselves to the White Housel. I asked the employee at the front desk whether, in the course of the day’s nonstop coverage of the attention-whore man and wife, the story had ever been interrupted by a mention of the 1,000+ leaked emails that have implicated the world’s top climate scientists in a fraud of epic importance. His response? “They mentioned it once. Briefly. And aren’t they saying that it was no big deal anyway? That it was just a couple of scientists?”

CNN should be ashamed that, after a full day of watching their news reporting, their viewers have no clue that those “couple of scientists” (I don’t know what the real number is) include Obama’s science czar, Dr. John Holdren, who authored some of the emails, defended disgraced researcher Michael Mann, and has said that forced abortions are needed to save the planet. Viewers don’t know that the U.N. has used the fake research to bolster their efforts to pass a draconian international climate treaty in Copenhagen. They don’t know that what the scientists were hiding was hard evidence that the planet has been getting cooler, not warmer, since 1998. They don’t know that a U.S. scientist is suing NASA to release climate data he believes will prove the same fraud has been taking place on our side of the pond.

No offense to the gym employee, who at least knew more than the many Americans who have not even heard that an email scandal exists. Because while the news of the X-Files-worthy conspiracy is stirring revolution in Australian politics, creating buzz in the Russian press, and even inciting the UK’s Telegraph to publish the headline, “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation” — CNN would rather talk about party crashers and Tiger Woods. And if it mentions the emails at all, it expresses more concern over the legality of the whistle-blower’s actions than the legality of international fraud at the top levels of the scientific community. But why should we be surprised? CNN is the network that considers Lou Dobbs too right-wing: so right-wing, in fact, that they paid the guy to leave.

If CNN won’t investigate the climate emails, which even liberal Jon Stewart has attacked on his show, it will be a cold day in Hell (or an exceedingly cold climate-changed century on earth) before they touch the real story about Obama’s “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings. But he is a topic for another day.

Our judgment: CNN news is Food For Zombies who would rather be told what tingles their ears than learn the cold, harsh truth. May they devour you quickly and completely, lest your limbs grow back more powerful than ever.

In March 2007 Colonel John T. Coffee Camp #1934, Sons of Confederate Veterans Commander Gary Ayres had the honor of getting an article he had authored about Jewish Confederates published in ‘Jewish Magazine’ (which we have posted on our “Library” page at http://www.coffeecamp.net/jewish_confederates ).

Recently Mr. Ayres received an email from one of the editors at “Jewish Magazine” which stated that one reader had several objections to his article.

The “offended” , one Charles “Chuck” Hirshberg recently complained to Jewish Magazine that:

Dear “Jewish Magazine”:
Some three weeks ago, I wrote to you expressing my deep concern over an article of yours titled  “Jewish Confederates”. I believe that my email  (copied below) demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the article is both historically ridiculous, and patently racist. At the very least, I would have expected to receive  an email in return acknowledging my communication. But I  have heard nothing at all from you, and the article is still  posted. 
May I please request the courtesy of a  reply?

Very truly yours, 
Charles Hirshberg

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Commander Ayer’s exercised great restraint and exhibited much professionalism in his reply to Mr. Hirshberg, which Jewish Magazine forwarded to him. Below is his response:

The Los Angeles Times reports:

No, it wouldn’t do anything for the environment.

But two Hollywood conservatives (yes, there are some) have called upon the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to rescind the prestigious, profitable gold Oscar statuette that it gave ex-Vice President Al Gore et al two years ago for the environmental movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both Academy members, are among a small, meandering pack of known political conservatives still believed to be on the loose in the liberal bastion of movie-making.

In 2007, Hollywood’s Academy sanctified Gore’s cinematic message of global warming with its famous statue, enriched his earnings by $100,000 per 85-minute appearance.

Network news programs have been far more concerned with the obviously more important White House party-crasher story involving a couple of formally-dressed phonies.

The falsified documents do not come up in Gore interview excerpts published late last night here by Politico’s John F. Harris and Mike Allen.

This week White House Press Secy. Robert Gibbs claimed that global warming was no longer in dispute by most people. But a subsequent Rasmussen Reports poll of Americans finds only one in four adults believe most scientists agree on the topic.

And while only 20% claim to have followed the leaked e-mail story Very Closely, nearly 60% believe it is at least somewhat likely that scientists have falsified environmental data to support their own global warming beliefs and theories.

Click below to read more:

Take back Al Gore’s Oscar, 2 Academy members demand in light of Climategate

Posted using ShareThis

by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown … Frontpagemag.com

The liars behind global warming.

Just like in the Wizard of Oz, the curtain was torn back and leading proponents of anthropogenic (people-caused) global warming have been caught lying.

Called Climategate, the scandal exposes the global warming shysters who are conning the public into a massive restructuring of the global economy, while attempting to silence any dissent. But don’t expect to see this in our mainstream media, because they are the spinsters who promote this manipulation of data and propaganda.

The leading profiteering propagandist is Al Gore. After losing the presidential election in 2000, Al Gore became the leader of the hysteria movement. However, this “Eco-Prophet” has hidden a few inconvenient truths of his own. He just happens to be involved with a venture capital firm that has invested approximately a billion dollars in green companies that stand to make a bundle if Cap-and-Trade becomes law.

Reports state that Gore’s net worth now stands at $100 million, when it was $2 million when he left politics. He’s laughing all the way to the bank.

Al Gore has a history of playing loose with the facts.

Recently on TV, while discussing geothermal energy, Al Gore made the outrageous claim that “the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees.” However, the actual temperature here on earth is between 5,000 and 9,000 degrees. This is a gaffe that if Sarah Palin had made, the media would ridicule as her stupid.

Not only is Gore prone to hyperbole, hypocrisy and blatant distortions, he is also a bully. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT wrote about scientists being “in the crosshairs” of Gore, who “tried to bully” them into changing “their views and supporting his climate alarmism.” Lindzen also refers to a failed Gore effort to “enlist Ted Koppel (then a TV host) in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists.”

When one side tries to shut another side out of the debate, it is typically because they feel their arguments won’t stand up to scrutiny.

click below for more: (pictures inserted by steve; except the top one)

via The Con Artists of Climategate – by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown.

Here’s the way a “dry run” incident on board a flight from Atlanta to Houston was reported in the main stream media:

From the AP:
Phone Call Delays Houston Bound Air Tran Flight (link here)

ATLANTA — AirTran Airways says a flight from Atlanta to Houston with more than 70 passengers on board was delayed when a passenger refused to end a cell phone call.
AirTran spokesman Christopher White told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Flight 297, a Boeing 717, was taxiing on the runway in Atlanta Tuesday afternoon when a crew member asked a passenger to turn off his phone.
White says that after several failed attempts by the crew member to end the conversation, the captain returned the plane to the gate.
White says the passenger complied when he was asked to get off the plane. He says no charges were filed, and that the plane departed for Houston 2 ½ hours later.

Another headline with the report:
Cell Phone Gets Man Kicked Off Atlanta Airport Flight (link here)

ATLANTA — An AirTran flight was delayed leaving Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Tuesday after a passenger refused to get off his cell phone.
Christopher White with AirTran said AirTran Airways flight 297 to Houston Hobby International Airport was scheduled to leave Atlanta at 4:40 p.m. During taxi, one passenger was using his cell phone and ignored the flight attendants’ requests to turn it off.
“Out of an abundance of caution, the captain of the flight made the decision to taxi the plane back to the gate,” White said in a statement sent to Channel 2 Action News.
The passenger was then requested to get off the plane, White said.
Officials said the passenger complied with all instructions upon returning to the gate.
All of the other 73 passengers were able to re-board the plane just after 6 p.m.

Now scroll below the line to read what really happened; and be ready to get quite angry:

__________________________________________________________________

By Doug Hagmann Thursday, December 3, 2009 (these are excerpts from the article)

On November 17, an incident took place aboard AirTran Flight 297 scheduled to fly from Atlanta Hartsfield Airport to Houston that the media does not want to cover and everyone from the airline to the TSA and other government agencies want to keep very quiet. The reasons, I have been told, is fear of predatory lawsuits, negative publicity from accusations of religious profiling, and the obligatory subjugation to mindless mandatory Muslim sensitivity training that make a mockery of our American system of values. Interestingly, one airline official told me “we don’t want to become another flight 300,” which is a reference to a very similar scenario that took place aboard US Airways Flight 300 exactly three years ago

The incident

A group of thirteen men dressed in traditional Muslim attire were among 73 passengers who boarded AirTran Flight 297 on Tuesday, 17 November 2009, a routine flight scheduled to depart Atlanta Hartsfield Airport, gate C-16 at 4:43 PM ET to Houston Hobby Airport. Reports developed by this investigator found two witnesses who observed direct interaction among all of these Muslim men at the terminal.

As the passengers boarded the aircraft, two of the Muslim men took seats in first class, while the remaining eleven were seated throughout the remaining rows of the aircraft. Most had carrying-on bags that they stowed in the overhead compartments above their seats.

As the aircraft began to taxi to the runway, a female flight attendant was beginning to issue the normal passenger advisories over the PA system. Almost on cue at the time passengers were told to turn off all electronic devices, one of the Muslim men seated in the front of the plane began to use his cell phone in a manner that was described by a flight attendant and passenger “as deliberate and obvious.” He was talking loudly in Arabic, nearly at the level of the flight attendant. Some reports suggest that this man actually called another Muslim passenger, although this has not been immediately confirmed. It is possible, however, as another passenger reported that a Muslim man seated toward the rear of the plane answered his cellular phone at the same time the man in the front began using his.

At this point, the flight attendant in the front of the plane approached the Muslim man using his telephone and instructed him to immediately turn it off. A second female flight attendant did the same at the rear of the aircraft. Concurrent with this cellular activity, two other Muslim men seated adjacent near the middle of the aircraft began operating what one passenger described as a palm type camcorder, ostensibly to view previously taken footage. It is possible, according to one flight attendant interviewed by this investigator, however, that the camcorder was being used for recording purposes. Whatever its use, a third flight attendant, aware of the incidents taking place in the front and rear of the aircraft, approached the two men for the purpose of securing the camcorder. At least two passengers reported that the men became abusive to the flight attendant and initially refused to comply with her request.

It was at this time that most of the passengers began to notice the multiple incidents involving over a dozen men dressed in Islamic attire. Next, as if previously rehearsed, at least ten of the 13 Muslim men aboard the aircraft began to leave their seats at the same time. At least one passenger stated she observed one of the Muslim passengers using his cell phone to take photos of other passengers on the aircraft, while one other Muslim passenger sang loudly in Arabic. According to information provided to this investigator from one of the flight crew who was alerted to an onboard emergency, the aircraft was now being taxied back to the terminal. The TSA, FAA and FBI were notified.

According to one airline security official, “This was a deliberate, well planned attempt to disrupt a domestic flight that was organized in advance of the boarding of these [Muslim] passengers. The purpose of their actions appeared to be multi-faceted, not the least of which was an attempt to change their status from innocuous passengers to victims of religious profiling. The situation was handled in a manner that we believe might have avoided an incident like USAir had in 2006, where everyone from the passengers who reported suspicious behavior to the airline was subjected to legal action by the Muslim passengers.”

While litigation might have been avoided, passengers and flight crew remain traumatized, and our air travel system was unnecessarily disrupted during one of the busiest air travel weeks in the U.S. The agenda of the Islamists behind this incident is clear, yet no one in the media seems to have the desire to expose these ideological cretins for what they are.

Read the whole story here

The irresponsible ‘reporting’ of this event by the main stream media is a threat to the safety of Americans. I don’t think I could have just sat there and watched this if I was on the plane without becoming … uh … “actively” involved with confronting the trouble makers.

Security incident aboard AirTran Flight 297 suggests terror “Dry Run”.

Posted by Tom Trento at Front Page Mag

I’m on my way back to Ground Zero … make sure I get this stuff:

BLOOMIE, OBAMA…

I’m on my way back to Ground Zero … make sure I get this stuff:

1. Only fresh Halal food …no frozen crap.

2. A brand new Holy Qur’an …untouched by infidel pigs

3. No Jews anywhere near me

4. ACLU attorney’s …4 or 5 or 6! (they can be Jews)

5. My own column in the NY Times.

6. No Jews anywhere near me

7. All my trial expenses paid by American taxpayer dogs

8. My personal copy of the US Constitution …signed by Pelosi

9. Immediate approval for my Green Card

10. No Jews anywhere near me.

JOIN ME AND MANY OTHERS AS WE SUPPORT THE 911 FAMILIES AT A RALLY IN LOWER MANHATTAN

See you in New York

For all details visit:

www.911familiesforamerica.org

Also visit FloridaSecurityCouncil.org

via An Important Statement from Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed – by Tom Trento.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent $2,993 in taxpayer money on flowers between June and October. House Majority Whip James Clyburn has a thing for Chantilly Donuts, spending about $265 at the Virginia shop in the past quarter. And Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a fiscal conservative, decided to give about $2,000 in unused office funds back to the government to help reduce the deficit.

These expenditures – culled from thousands of line items released Monday by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House – are just a fraction of the $300 million spent last quarter by House offices. But while the bulk of congressional office spending goes to salaries and routine office expenses, some of the line items offer a window into the personalities and priorities of each congressional office.

Pelosi, who has come under fire in the past for spending on flowers, also spent roughly $30,610 in food and beverage and about $2,740 on bottled water, contributing to the nearly $120,531 total from all congressional leadership accounts. Her offices defended the charges, saying the Speaker’s office holds more ceremonial events with visiting dignitaries than other congressional offices. They also use a local florist, and about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral

Nancy Pelosi spends $2,993 on flowers

As always, those in government have no problem whatsoever using the American taxpayers money for just about anthing they want. Of course they’re entitled to it, as is evident by their justifications of their exceeding waste. It’s disgusting the arrogance of some of these folks …Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, and Charles Schumer to name a few that elevate themselves to such lofty heights … hopefully to be ran out of Washington soon.

If I wind up finding one positive review of Sarah Palin’s massive-selling book, Going Rogue: An American Life, I might pass out.  The liberal reviews are great, nonetheless.

The first one worth mentioning is a review written by Patricia Williams of The Observer.  Past article-titles of such stellar unbiased reviewing include:

1.) My Family’s Debt to the Kennedys’ America

2.) Having Barack Obama as president doesn’t make America colour – blind

Ms. Williams is a professor at Columbia, so it’s not a surprise that she would attempt to give small-town folks the benefit of the doubt by stating: “America’s small towns are filled with vibrant, curious, diverse personalities” right before saying:

But Palin is committed to a romantic Disneyesque trope of “small town values,” a uniform, folksy fairyland where no one ever has to lock their doors or even disagrees.

That’s because; Ms. Williams, all of those small-town folks, including Ms. Palin believe in the second Amendment.  Therefore; leaving our doors unlocked is no trouble.

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
(Editor, KO Zine)

This Thanksgiving may be one of the toughest for many of us. Some may not be able to afford to travel the distance to see their family. Others may not even have the money to recreate the traditional Thanksgiving dinner enjoyed year after year. Without the family or food of the holiday, some would say this holiday is nothing. Here’s something for you to think about, even if you have very little.

According to the History Channel, Thanksgiving was traditionally created following a particularly rough winter that killed many Pilgrims. After forming an alliance with some local American Indians, the Pilgrims were able to rack up enough food for the upcoming winter. Thanksgiving was a three-day feast to celebrate what they believed would be a less harsh winter.

You knew this already, right? Well, after being asked if Thanksgiving was an American holiday last week, thought I should do a little recap. Canada actually celebrates Thanksgiving, but it’s separate date with a whole different history.

While thankfulness is an important factor of this holiday, another aspect should be considered in the world of politics. The American Indians, native to what would become the United States, were willing to help their new neighbors, despite the fact that they had come from some unknown place. Today, many immigrants are simply pushed aside, left to do the jobs that many of us find menial.

When will this country finally start treating all immigrants with respect? Not just those who excel in math and science. – In June, President Barack Obama promised his commitment to “comprehensive immigration reform.”

He plans to “clarify the status of millions who are here illegally.” He believes those who wish to become citizens would be required to pay a penalty, learn English and go to the end of the line behind those who came here legally.

The president has asked Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, to develop immigration reform legislation that was said to be announced this fail. Some of the 7 main points he plans to include are an employer verification system, a path to citizenship for those already in the country and better control of the borders.

All of this sounds great, but will it ever happen? I know, health care must be first and the government also must deal with growing unemployment, global warming, the list is never ending.

Those of us lucky enough to have Thanksgiving dinner this year probably have so many different dishes to prepare. We have to cook everything at once, getting as close to perfection as possible.

The government has the same problem, only they’re dealing with millions of lives. Tackling each issue takes patience and debate. If immigration must be put on the back burner, I hope it’s not forgotten.

More Info:
CBS News
New York Times
Senator Schumer Government Wensite
History Channel

This article is from the New York Times and anyone (well, except those on the left) can easily see the biased so-called “reporting”. I’ll put a few excerpts here, and the link to make the entire article available.
Okay, here we go:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress enacted a law banning the government from providing funds to the group.

Since 1994, Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer funds — including funds authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.

Founded in Arkansas in 1970, Acorn describes itself as the nation’s largest grass-roots community organizing group. It provides financial services to poor and middle-income families, conducts voter registration drives, and advocates for higher minimum wages and more affordable housing.

Conservatives have long complained about Acorn’s voter drives in poor neighborhoods, citing instances in which workers fraudulently registered imaginary voters like “Mickey Mouse.”

Criticism of the group escalated last September, when two conservative activists made public footage they had recorded using secret cameras of Acorn workers in several cities. The activists had posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking financial advice. Instead of raising objections, the Acorn employees counseled the couple on how to hide their illicit activities and avoid paying taxes.

Conservatives seized on the videos to further criticize the group, highlighting that the Obama campaign had paid an Acorn affiliate for get-out-the-vote efforts. Congress then enacted the ban on providing funds to it.

Of course the New York Times doesn’t mention the fact that the ‘conservative activists’ were requesting help to cover underage smuggling and prostitution of minors, or the recent uncovering of ACORN dumping thousands of incriminating documents, etc., etc.
The Obama cronies have figured out a way to get around stopping the tax-payer funding of Obama’s pet, ACORN.

Link here

Is it just me, or does Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look just like one of the marionettes from “Team America: World Police?” I digress…

I really don’t have anything to add to the KSM/9-11 trial that folks like Rudy Giuliani, Pete King, and Andy McCarthy have express more articulately and with more effective anger than I ever could. Besides, I’m sure the last thing the internet needs is another conservative blogger criticizing the President. At least, not when it’s so much funner to point out liberals who have been criticizing him as of late.

First is Richard Cohen, who I’m a huge fan of because a) I like hearing from people who disagree with me, and b) Cohen is an actual liberal as opposed just another Obama apologist. Here’s what Mr. Cohen has to say recently aboot the assorted foreign-policy related…it’s Thanksgiving, so I’ll be generous and call them “oopsies….”

But to reread the speech is also to come face to face with an Obama of keen moral clarity. Here was a man who knew why he was running for president and knew, also precisely, what he personified. He could talk to America as a black man and a white man — having lived in both worlds. He could — and he did — explain to America what it is like to have been a black man of Wright’s age and what it is like even now to be a black man of any age.

Somehow, though, that moral clarity has dissipated. The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conferences and events — and having his remarks sometimes censored. When I saw him in that picture alone on the Great Wall, he seemed to be thinking, “What the hell am I doing here?” If so, it was a good question.

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Sept. 11 defendants in criminal court, as if this were a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. What is the principle in that: What works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.

Even the Obama Apologists at the serious news organization MSNBC have been critical (as opposed to the fake news on Fox). Here’s JBdotC 2008 Political Douchebag of the Year Chris Matthews, who sounds like \his leg isn’t tingling as much as it used to…

“I worry about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He’s going to find himself an ACLU lawyer . . . He’s going to use that as a platform from hell where he gets to spew his point of view on the Middle East – that kind of thing he’s going to sell with the beard and everything – The New York Post is going to be reborn with this guy as the enemy. I just worry that he’s going to win this argument for months before he gets executed, if he does get executed. If that ever happens, I worry about this becoming a show for the bad guys.”

You’re doing a heckuva job there, Barry!

Mr. Phelim McAleer, the director and producer of the documentary film, “Not Evil, Just Wrong”, tries to get an answer from Al Gore. The arrogant Mr. Gore looking highly uncomfortable and agitated, dodged the question until his cronies cut Mr. McAleer’s microphone off…

My friends at NAS.org have posted on the “Climate Conspiracy” that broke when hackers revealed global warming scientists had apparently manipulated data, organized attacks on skeptics, and much more. Surprise, surprise.

The timing couldn’t be worse for those who would cripple economies with the plaintive cry: “Do as we say or we all die!” Worldwide there is growing skepticism about the benefits of micromanaging every aspect of daily life while measuring “carbon footprints.” The Wall Street Journal even contributed to this Nanny Project with a long piece measuring the carbon footprint of various common products. I was relieved to see that beer had the lowest carbon footprint.

How far have we gone when we decide whether or not it is “good for the planet” to drink beer? Now we must ask: Did German scientists manipulate the beer data to preserve their national beverage? (I’m kidding). It’s a good cause (beer drinking) but who studies this stuff? And when is enough enough?

To read more, click here.

By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, November 23, 2009

“It is a characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic element rises to the top.” Robert Lindner

How much longer will Al Gore get a pass from the mainstream media? A little bit longer if their failure to react to the devastating revelations of files hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is a measure. Their behavior reflects how most, especially from the left, have abetted the scientists who deliberately perverted climate science.

We now know Gore’s errors are based on the global warming fraud orchestrated by a few scientists centered round Phil Jones, Director of the CRU. Emails between those climate scientists, identified by Professor Wegman as publishing together and peer reviewing each other’s work disclose the complete manipulation of climate science and the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Bishop Hill provides a useful summation of some of the outrageous comments and actions. What is missing is the nasty vindictive tone that permeates almost every item.

What are the mainstream media going to do? How can they ignore the biggest scandal in science history and then claim any credibility? We already have a strong indication because they either don’t cover it or claim, like Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, there is nothing of consequence. No surprise because he was in direct communication with the CRU gang.

click below to read more about the fraud of Al Gore’s “climate change”

Gore’s Manipulation Allowed By Mainstream Media Climate Change Bias – Continues With CRU.

Okay. “Historic” health care bill. EVERYTHING that Obama has done has been ‘historic’.
Historic election
Historic cover-up of all his past
Historic dog
Historic take over of the auto industry
Historic take over of the mortgage industry
Historic take over of banks
Historic firing of CEO.
Historic gift of DVD’s
Historic gift of I-pod
Historic bowing
Historic arrogance
Historic unemployment
Historic deaths of troops abroad
Historic trials in N.Y.
Historic church
Historic association with terrorists
Historic national debt
Historic national deficit
Historic number of czars
Historic fraud
Historic deceit
Historic corruption
Historic Nobel Peace Prize
Historic B.S.

Now we have “historic health care”; This is what the main stream media says about it … read carefully the unbiased reporting of the event:

The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

Link to the b.s.

What is this, other than David Espo, a “special correspondent of the AP” giving his opinion on this foolishness called “health reform”. What is a “special correspondent”???
I’m so sick of these weasel, chrome-plated knee pad “journalists” giving this crap up as news, and the Associated Press, along with Yahoo news just carries it on their home page.
A blind man can see the left, Obama lean towards this kind of “reporting”.

Be sure to click on the “link” if you want to read the ‘rest of the story’.

Lately I have been thinking what a moron I am to have not been recording my Politics in the Media class lectures because Professor Robert Sahr is phenomenal. He brings up such great points of discussion and carries great knowledge that is always leaving me great thoughts to ponder. One particular point he brings up quite often is the charge of liberal bias. I think it is a great insight into how media is portrayed. Here is a collection of his notes and sources discussing similar issues in the news.

The CHARGE of “Liberal Bias” (very important conservative strategy in recent decades)

Why many people believe national media has liberal bias:  There appear to be two main reason:

• It is widely stated and seldom rebutted, e.g.,Rush Limbaugh always says “liberal media”
• We see what we look for:  if we expect a certain kind of bias we are more likely to believe we find evidence of it than if we do not expect it

Note that most media analysts reject the “liberal bias” view, arguing there may be a conservative bias, or at least a “mainstream bias,”and many      analysts are not themselves liberal

Evidence that challenges or undercuts “liberal bias” charge

To prove liberal bias, almost always conservative point to the fact that polls show that more journalists identify themselves as liberal (or at least Democratic) than conservative (or Republican).  This is true, but focusing only on this point ignores important evidence in a different direction.

1.  Endorsements: With only four exceptions (1964, 1992, 2004, 2008) since records began be kept in the 1930s, more newspapers – often many more – endorse Republicans than Democrats for President (see below)

2.  Talk show hosts and political columnists: Many more (about 70%) are conservative than liberal

2.  Media ownership:

Owners/executives are usually politically conservative

Increasing sharp concentration of ownership, with decreasing number of companies controlling media

So, even if journalists are politically liberal, they would have to challenge the views of owners/executives, who control       their advancement

4.  Actual Coverage (most important): Regardless of whether journalists are politically liberal as individuals, what counts is the actual coverage of conservative and non-conservative presidents, candidates, etc.

Compare media treatment of Presidents G.H.W Bush (initially positive) and Clinton (initially negative)

Compare media treatment of Presidents Carter (consistently negative and Reagan (generally positive)

Compare media treatment of Presidents George W. Bush (generally positive) and Clinton (almost uniformly negative)

An effect of the constant charge of “liberal bias” is that it challenges national journalists to be tough on non-conservative presidents, maybe to go easier on conservatives.

One reason for constant emphasis on “liberal press” and President Clinton as “liberal” appears to be to push journalists in this direction (note, though, that the Wall Street Journal and other analysis suggested that Clinton is not a liberal but instead a relatively middle of the road Democrat).

Is there, despite all these points, a liberal bias among national media?

The following analysis from Media Matters critiques the MSNBC survey. Although Media Matters admittedly is liberal, their analysis contains useful points in relation to sample (the small number of all journalists), the data about overall contributions to parties by media organizations, the non-inclusion of data from publishers (who) are very likely to be conservative and Republican) and editors (almost as conservative, having been selected by publishers), and similar points.

The following are useful links to past pieces regarding media bias.

• Scoops, Impact or Glory: What Motivates Reporters? By Byron Calame, Public Editor. Published: December 3, 2006. The New York Times.
• Let This Leak Go. By Richard Cohen, Op-Ed Columnist. Published: October 13, 2005. The Washington Post.
• The Runaway Train That Hit Scooter Libby. By Cohen, Op-Ed Columnist. Published: June 19, 2007. The Washington Post.

I’m currently reading a great book on the British media by the two guys behind Media Lens, David Edwards and David Cromwell.

Newspeak in the 21st Century is an angry, but analytical, and very damning report about the state of the British media and the soft-left, liberal veneer that coats the ugly conservative heart of the mainstream press and, it has to be said, the BBC.

The take-away message and one that I’m going to come back to in some detail when I’ve finished the book and have the time to write a good review is a simple one that’s going to offend some people, perhaps even some of my friends, but it has to be said.

Journalists like to invoke the mantra and the ideal belief that their job is to serve the public interest and that they best do this by holding the powerful to account. However, despite the best intentions of the best and the brightest, this rarely, if ever, really happens.

It is a powerful myth that liberal news outlets like The Guardian and the BBC are fighting the establishment. They’re not. Rather, the establishment media is all about propping up the establishment and propogating the lies that keep the system going. Like the lie that Israel is under attack and only acts in self-defence; or like the lie that Iraq had WMDs.

Newspeak in the 21st Century makes this very clear through a thorough content analysis of many of the key stories of the past 10 years or so; from the NATO bombing of Serbia in retaliation for alleged human rights abuses in Kosovo; through the whole lying and deceitful charade of the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to Israel’s continuing aggression in Gaza to the beat up of Iranian nuclear weapons programmes.

The unfortunate truth is that the news media is complicit in keeping the truth from us, rather than exposing the lies at the heart of the system.

Two brief quotes for now:

Journalists have been demonising other countries for so long, it seems they cannot stop. Always it is the 1930s; always Hitler is plotting our destruction always we need to recoil in fear, disgust and horror. Is this the real world? Or is it journalism as pathology? (p.160)

This is the perfect link between Newspeak in the 21st Century and Orwell’s 1984.

For the mainstream media, an opinion barely exists if it doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t matter if it is not voiced by people who matter. The full range of opinion, then, represents the full range of power. In that sense the mainstream media is balanced. (p.161)

Finally, Edwards and Cromwell talk about “state capitalism” and they don’t mean Russia and the USSR pre-1989. They’re talking about the system we inhabit today as a global economy. I will return to this as well, because I think they’re right about that too.