Is There a Light at the End of this Tunnel? ~ Ep. 1200 ~ The Dan Bongino Show®

This one starts with an epic introduction by Dan, when he says, "Alright, this is your daily Coronavirus update... Facts, data, no hysteria... If you want hysteria, go to the Drudge Report. If you want facts, go to the Bongino Report." And then the knockout punch comes, and I love it, where Dan says, without a flinch or even a blink, "Tune in to CNN or MSNBC if you want to freak out, and think that the zombie apocalypse is coming tomorrow..."

From the Bongino Show's description of this episode on youtube/Bongino:

In this episode, I address the continued misinformation campaign regarding the Coronavirus epidemic. I also address the disturbing attacks by Twitter against the Trump campaign, along with the Trump team’s response. Finally, I address the disastrous Bernie Sanders’s townhall last night.

Okay, let's just get one thing clear. If you have been visiting this blog a lot lately, you've probably noticed something, and you may be wondering, why do I blog so many (well, actually, ALL) of the Dan Bongino Show episodes that I have been watching? Peculiar behavior, you say? Well, it isn't. Let me tell you why I have focused on Bongino. It definitely isn't because I have a crush on him. It isn't because I expect any financial reward, which is probably what the liberals think. Nope, there is no financial reward, not expecting any thing in return. No quid pro quo, in other words! Then, why? One, I enjoy his shows. Two, I learn a lot from his shows. Three, I share the videos, with my perspective, and psychologically attractive promotion, so that YOU will watch these episodes and learn what I've been learning! It is that simple, folks.

I'd be sharing all of Rush Limbaugh's episodes, too, but his content is pay-to-see for the most part. I have no problem with that, and I must admit, I pretty much just listen to his show, and though I'm a Rush 24/7 subscriber, I barely have time to use it.

Doing this kind of thing, though, in order to aptly prepare you for what is out there, is what I really like to do, because it is helping me to learn so much. To learn how to get people to pay attention, and also learn, is a skill that I'm working very hard at learning. And, that is a critical function of mine, in the time I have left to be on this planet at above room temperature, because I know that where this country is going, and what our values are, is strongly motivated by having a granddaughter and children, whom I want to always be free. That's all it's about. And I will keep doing this for as long as I am able.

With all that being said, hey, take an hour, relax, and watch the exciting Episode 1200! What a great milestone, Dan! Thank you, Dan Bongino, for all you do!

VIDEO: What's the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist? DNC Chairperson is stumped!

Chris Matthews of MSNBC asked Debbie "Wassername" Wasserman Schultz, the DNC (Democrat National Committee) chair, what...
Posted by Johnny2k's America on Friday, July 31, 2015

Just in case anyone should doubt Debbie's intelligence, she did finally figure out the answer to the question...

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

MSNBC's Chris Hayes calls Bundy ranch supporters 'insurgents' ~ By Joe Newby

Of course, when Hayes uses terms like "insurgents" to describe Bundy supporters, he too, is helping to spur the left wing hate machine in its ongoing "two minutes hate" against the Bundys, their supporters and anyone on the right. Hayes was not the only one to call Bundy supporters "insurgents," Watson said.

One of Hayes' guests, leftist author Michelle Goldberg, wasted no time calling Bundy ranch supporters "right wing insurgents." She went on to compare them to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and accused them of plotting to take over the U.S. government.

"Last time I checked, they just wanted the feds to return Bundy’s cattle," Watson said.

Here is my motivation for posting this story by Joe Newby, along with the associated stories and videos:

Bundy is a domestic terrorist. You've got to be one of the biggest idiots on Facebook. Well, you and Fox News.

The above comment statement appeared on a Facebook group after I shared one of my videos with them. Wow, what a cunning person to come up with something so original! Well... Actually, NOT really, as it smells of the typical liberal troll.  Along with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) making statements about the supporters of Cliven Bundy being "domestic terrorists" and other false claims, now we have those on the left who are now making even more harsh allegations against those of us that have been reporting on the Bundy Ranch cattle battle.  Richard Escow, writing for Salon.com, claims that Sean Hannity will have blood on his hands for attempting to touch off a tinderbox by promoting "Cliven Bundy’s war."

So, now it isn't just Cliven Bundy and his supporters who are receiving massive focus from Harry Reid and the Liberal Democrat minions, but also those that are trying to report the story in a fair and balanced way. Keep in mind, that when it comes to Fox News, various hosts such as Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly are attorneys, and even they say that Bundy is most likely in the wrong when it comes to the law! It is absolutely laughable that those folks on the Left are now turning their attack towards people like me, or Fox News, but that is just the way they roll.

So, they've done it now.  I've been inspired to include the following two videos that I've recently posted that the liberal columnists and trolls would like to discredit:

Please note:  To see the following videos, you must be logged in to Facebook.
Is Harry Reid just trying to stoke up a violent incident?

Post by Johnny2k's America.

Who are the REAL domestic terrorists?

Post by Johnny2k's America.

So, I'd advise you to back off, Liberal trolls and "Dirty Harry" Reid, but it's probably too late. You aren't going to like the backlash against your false accusations. Stay tuned!  Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:

• April 22, 2014 ~ MSNBC Smears Bundy Supporters as “Insurgents,” Attacks Infowars, Drudge ~ By Paul Joseph Watson

• April 22, 2014 ~ Liberals on Twitter demand feds kill Bundy family, supporters with drones ~ By Joe Newby

• April 18, 2014 ~ Harry Reid: Bundy supporters 'domestic terrorists,' hints at federal task force ~ By Joe Newby

• April 16, 2014 ~ VIDEO: What happens when We the People rise up?

*    *    *    *

MSNBC's Chris Hayes calls Bundy ranch supporters 'insurgents'

By Joe Newby

April 23, 2014

From Spokane examiner.com

The propaganda effort to demonize anyone to the right of Josef Stalin continues, as MSNBC's Chris Hayes called supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy "insurgents," Paul Joseph Watson said at Infowars Tuesday. Hayes and his guests spent about 15 minutes in what was clearly a propaganda effort designed to marginalize Bundy supporters and certain alternate media outlets as fringe kooks.

In addition to calling Bundy supporters "insurgents," Watson said Hayes lamented "the threat posed to the establishment by an Alex Jones-Drudge-Fox News-Rand Paul 'axis' that threatens to rock the 2016 presidential race." Hayes also linked Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., to his "axis" for calling Bundy Ranch supporters "patriots."

As a result of heated rhetoric like that used by Hayes, liberals have begun calling for the Bundys and their supporters to be killed by the federal government. As we reported Tuesday, a number of angry leftists have demanded the feds destroy the ranch and kill everyone present with drones.

Is this what Hayes and his ilk ultimately want? It certainly seems so, given that the rhetoric appears to become more shrill and violent every day.

~~~ READ MORE on Spokane examiner.com ~~~

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Please note:  To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

VIDEO: What Geraldo said should have been on the Black Hole Network?

Rumsfeld in January 2001

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.
~ United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld
[Via Wikipedia]

For Bill O'Reilly to disparage Geraldo Rivera in the way that he does in this video, he is doing a great disservice to all journalists that are trying to report the story of the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370. What O'Reilly did was to make people skeptical about any news that they hear about the missing flight. Right before Geraldo was able to discuss his "theory," O'Reilly attacked his credibility.

The arrogant behavior by some of the pundits is appalling; many in the media are looking for ways to be the most sensational. And meanwhile, to be the "oracle" that breaks the "case solved" story, they have to rip into every other "theory."  It is not satisfactory journalism when those of us that are trying to pay attention are constantly forced to discern between facts and speculative theories in the reporting. Mr. O'Reilly, it is BECAUSE of the wall-to-wall media coverage, and WILD speculations, that We the People have to keep every possibility on the table, just as Geraldo said. We don't know if it was a mechanical failure, an attempted hijacking that failed or succeeded, or SOMETHING ELSE entirely!

(See Update on March 24, 2014 below.)

As Donald Rumsfeld said, "There are things we do not know we don't know."  What do the journalists not know that they don't know?  It makes me wonder.  Just sayin'...

Please note:  To see the following video, you must be logged in to Facebook.

Post by Johnny2k's America.

UPDATE March 24, 2014:

I just came across the youtube.com clip from the Black Hole Network (CNN) and felt it should be shown here.   H/T to Girls Just Wanna Have Guns With Regis Giles:

Don Lemon - Is It Preposterous to Think a Black Hole Caused Flight 370 to Go Missing? - CNN

Published on Mar 19, 2014

3-19-14 - CNN's Don Lemon has been entertaining all sorts of theories about the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, including the chance something "supernatural" happened, but on Wednesday night, he actually asked panelists about the possibility a black hole was involved. Lemon brought this up along with other "conspiracy theories" people have been floating on Twitter, including people noting the eerie parallels to Lost and The Twilight Zone, and wondered, "is it preposterous" to consider a black hole as a possibility?

Mary Schiavo, a former Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation, said, "A small black hole would suck in our entire universe, so we know it's not that."

Here's another theory I'll just throw out there: what about the plane entered a wormhole into another dimension? I don't know if that's how the science works, though.

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Please note:  To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

The demonization of Fox News ~ By Phil Elmore

Do you know why the people on the left - liberals/progressives/Democrats/Socialists/Communists - hate Fox News so much? Because there are so many people like Phil and I that LOVE Fox News! So, what do I mean when I say, "people like Phil and I"? Well, it is the people out here that detest what the Left stands for and does. We are the people that dissent every time we hear of another huge government program coming along.

Last week, when Phil wrote the column, "Facebook as the new public square," in my blog of the column, I included the trailer video for the movie, "The Social Network." This week, I have something even better for you. It is a parody based on the that trailer video that you saw last week:

The Socialist

Video provided by benhoweblog

You may have noticed that in the above video, interestingly, there are a lot clips that came from Fox News. And that explains the kind of people that love Fox News. The lefties don't seem to like the fact that we're on to them. We stay glued to Fox News so that we find out all the things the other networks won't show you or tell you about.

That is all I need to tell you, because Phil will fill you in on the rest of the story. I just wanted to get you warmed up for another great column by Phil Elmore, the best of the best. Just sayin'...

No matter how many lib watchdog groups claim otherwise, Fox News is neither more biased nor less accurate than its five major competitors. Leftists are simply angry that there is one news source among half a dozen that is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Democrats' fellow travelers in the media will never abide dissent, and thus Fox News must be marginalized and destroyed. This is the respect "liberals" have for free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Were it up to them, they would beat you into silence for speaking in opposition to them ... as they have repeatedly demonstrated with boot, fist and truncheon.

The demonization of Fox News

By Phil Elmore

Posted: October 07, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



Perhaps the most significant technological innovation in the delivery of news to its audience, after the printing press, was television cable news. Ted Turner's CNN debuted in the summer of 1980. The network few thought could succeed instead created the 24-hour cable news cycle, forever transforming how current events and political commentary are packaged and presented to customers. Even as Internet news providers are killing traditional newspapers, television news and commentary channels – in particular, Fox News – hold powerful sway in popular culture.

This was painfully apparent in the last few weeks, as televised news personalities, their networks and satirists pretending to be news personalities made national news, mostly by running their mouths. Stephen Colbert managed to disgrace himself, Democrats and Congress (no mean feat) by bringing his inappropriately in-character schtick to a congressional hearing. Colbert is a one-trick pony; the comedic entity who spawned him, Jon Stewart, was himself at the center of a the high-profile meltdown of CNN's Rick Sanchez.

Stewart, remember, as "anchor" of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," is slowly forgetting that he'a comedian who makes fun of the news. As he invites infamously liberal politicians onto his show and tosses them softballs so they can make fun of conservatives, it's painfully obvious that he's living out the Bill Maher career life-cycle. Bill Maher today is an angry, venomous twit, and if he was ever funny, it doesn't show. The same fate awaits Stewart.

But I digress. Rick Sanchez, whose tenure at CNN was characterized by wretched liberal bias and open hostility to conservatives, recently lost his mind. He accused Stewart of prejudice and ranted about "the Jews." One or the other was too much for his bosses. While it does seem strange that Sanchez was only fired after her took a shot at a fellow leftist, his departure from CNN is no loss to the journalism world.

Sanchez was among those lefties in the media who participated in a loosely confederated campaign to marginalize Fox News – which brings me to my point. Fox News began operation in October of 1996. Four years later, nearly a third of Americans were among the network's sometime viewers. Even the left-leaning Huffington Post has been forced to acknowledge Fox News' influence in the marketplace: "Just how dominant is Fox News? Consider this: its morning show, 'Fox & Friends,' draws more total viewers on average than the top-rated NON-Fox show in cable news, MSNBC's 'Countdown.'"

The success of Fox has stuck in the craw of many an angry commie-lib. Democrats have been gnashing their teeth over the network's existence since its debut. Back in 2004, Julia Angwin chronicled the libs' political assault on Fox in the Wall Street Journal. The drumbeat to falsely accuse Fox of being somehow less than a "real" news source has only grown louder since.

Our brittle, defensive president, Glorious Leader Obama, has never been good with criticism. He has repeatedly chipped away at the stature of the presidency by identifying – and whining about – his critics, taking on private citizens by name. Jann Wenner's fawning article in Rolling Stone is a perfect example; Obama condemns Fox News as "destroying America" because the prevailing sentiment expressed by the network, as he sees it, is one with which he disagrees.

Fox News' staff have challenged these hypocritical assertions of "conservative bias" before. In the case of the Rolling Stone interview, Fox's O'Reilly quickly hit back, rightly pointing out that Obama unfairly demonizes anybody who dares to disagree with him. In the same interview, Obama hinted ominously at "darker elements" within the tea-party movement. Leftists delight in painting their opponents as vaguely "dangerous" – even as their fellow libs assault those whose opinions they despise.

Critics of Fox continue to howl despite the fact that every other network news source and the majority of traditional "journalists" are demonstrably biased to the left. Even MSNBC reported on the trend three years ago – a trend identified in 1992 by the New York Times' William Glaberson. The numbers only get worse as time progresses; no less than 65 percent of donations from journalists are to Democrats.


READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Lefties' envy of Sarah Palin ~ By Chrissy Satterfield

This was the first column I've read by Chrissy Satterfield, who is new to WorldNetDaily.com. I was impressed, and believe you will be too. In this piece, she is talking about Cathy Areu (whom I've never heard of!) and what she said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, that according to MSNBC, wasn't even supposed to happen. Chrissy came to Palin's defense after Areu had done a Palin-bashing spiel in her interview with Bill on "The Factor."

Chew on this: because Palin made $12 million, are we supposed to forget about the life experiences that led her to this success? If anything, we as women should unite and hold her successes in high esteem. It's not every day a former beauty queen turns governor turns author turns Fox News host. I relate to Palin not because of her financial position or where she shops, but because of her upbringing and moral foundation. Palin was born into a middle-class family, not with a silver spoon in her mouth. She is a self-made woman who now earns a heck of a lot more than she used to. Areu should be giving Palin props, not "call her out" because she's not standing in line at Wal-Mart. If Areu is judging a politician's intelligence and class based on whether or not she shops at Wal-Mart, she's more lost than I thought.

By Chrissy Satterfield

Posted: April 20, 2010 ~ 11:30 pm Eastern

© 2010

Cathy Areu: media entrepreneur, author, speaker, journalist and apparently sponsored by Wal-Mart. Last week on Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor," Ms. Areu, publisher of Catalina Magazine, threw one heck of a hissy fit. O'Reilly invited her to defend comments she made about former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin. Areu said, "Sarah Palin can do no wrong for so many people. I mean, she is the female Larry the Cable Guy minus the class and intelligence." Take a second to let that marinate. With a comment like that, Areu's class and intelligence should be questioned.

First, MSNBC reported that Areu declined the interview with the no-spin-zone commentator, saying, "Areu said thanks but no thanks to Fox. Saying she wanted to appear right here on MSNBC. We don't blame her." Joke's on you, Peter Alexander, because there she was April 16 with her arms in the air hating on someone who has done some pretty courageous things. But enough free advertising for the elitist media.

I should warn you, the following message is brought to you in part by Wal-Mart. Areu told O'Reilly: "[Palin] made $12 million since July. She's not watching her pennies anymore. She's not waiting in the Wal-Mart line like I am. She's eating caviar and drinking champagne." Throughout the entire segment Areu referenced Wal-Mart so many times, I swear even they wanted her to shut up. I'm sorry, I didn't know class and intelligence were essential to shopping at Wal-Mart – tell that to the unruly "welfare check" that runs over my foot every time I step out of the aisle and then doesn't apologize! Bonus, no one wants to wait in line with Areu anyway. She's probably the woman with 60 items in the self-check-out lane who forgot her wallet in the car.

Areu's argument rests on Palin's paycheck rather than her character. Sounds like Areu is pretty shallow and resentful. She says Palin is not relatable because she makes so much money, and that instead of being the "Sarah Sixpack" she portrays, in reality Palin is a "diva." It's Areu who isn't relatable, because 1) no one knows who she is, and 2) no one knows who she is! She's crying foul because no one has heard of her and she wants to get a little face time. Well sorry, Areu, the only face time I can offer is this column, and I don't think you're going to like it.

I need to shoot the elephant in the room by addressing what some have yet to say out loud. If Palin were a man, no one would care about how much money he made. Look at O'Reilly. He came from humble beginnings and has made a shipload of money, yet claims to be "a simple man." Why didn't Areu call him out? The fact that Palin is a double-X chromosome means she's under a microscope when it comes to being a wealthy powerful woman. On top of that, she's a Republican, so the spotlight is on her everywhere she goes. Areu is concerned that Palin's personality doesn't match her bank account. I'm concerned that Areu's personality doesn't match her accomplishments. How has this woman made it so far with the intellect of a liberal lab rat?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

My 1st 2010 prognostication ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: January 31, 2010 ~ 11:04 pm Eastern © 2010 I don't claim to be clairvoyant. I don't claim to be a political prognosticator. I don't even claim to be a big fan of electoral politics. But I am going to make a prediction today about a U.S. Senate race being held in Arizona this year. U.S. Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, is going to get beat. Remember where you heard it. One of the false assumptions many Republicans hold following the special election for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts and after the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign and the Virginia governor's race, is that this is simply a bad year for Democrats. It will be a bad year for Democrats running for re-election in the House and Senate, but it's not just because they are Democrats. It's because they are incumbents and the public is in a mood to throw the bums out. Well, the dirty little secret is that not all the bums are Democrats. And that's where McCain comes in. He's toast. Whether he knows it or not, McCain is not going to be re-elected. The people of Arizona have had enough of his arrogance and big-government ideas and so have Americans. The only question left is whether he will be beaten by a Democrat or taken out in a primary by a real Republican. I'm hoping for the latter. And the man for that job is J.D. Hayworth, former House member and, until recently, an Arizona talk-show host. I like J.D. Hayworth, and I hereby endorse his candidacy unequivocally. He's the best hope Republicans have of holding on to that Senate seat in November. McCain is yesterday's news. He's been there too long. He's become comfortable in Washington. And he's especially too cozy with the other party – the one on the verge of bankrupting America. Hayworth tells it like it is. Did you catch him on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews"? Of course you didn't. Nobody watches MSNBC. But maybe you saw what I saw – the YouTube version: (See below) READ FULL STORY >

January 26, 2010 - McCain Challenger: Obama 'Should Come Forward' With Birth Certificate

Video provided by tpmtv

Karl Rove On The House Republican Retreat

From the RUBY SLIPPERS blog:

Much has been made of the President's appearance at the House Republican retreat on Friday. MSNBC changed their lineup Friday night to host a one hour special touting the genius of Obama's success in handing those nasty Republicans their hats and sending back where they belong, in the political wilderness. It was obnoxious. It was also a gross overstatement but we've come to expect nothing less from that network. It was an amazing moment according to Democrats:

The moment President Obama began his address to Republicans in Baltimore today, I began to receive e-mails from Democrats: Here's an except from one of them: "I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it took a f$$@&$* year for Obama to step into the ring and start throwing some verbal blows... I'm definitely praying at mass on Sunday morning that this Obama doesn't take another 12 month vacation." This e-mail comes from a very influential Democrat. Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months. Debating a law professor is kind of foolish: the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama's weakness -- his penchant for nuance -- into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president. (By the way: can we stop with the Obama needs a teleprompter jokes?)

I watched most of this event on Friday and saw a defensive thin-skinned Obama pretend he was suddenly all about bipartisanship. As usual, Obama laid a heaping helping of blame on Republicans but was forced to admit the Republicans had ideas, that he'd seen them and considered them. Perhaps it's just me but didn't he just spend an entire year claiming the exact opposite? READ FULL STORY >

January 29, 2010 - Rove: Obama Met With GOP to Depict Them as Obstructionists as He Faked Bipartisan Outreach for TV

Video provided by PoliJAM

L.A. Times gunning for me ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: January 27, 2010 ~ 12:39 am Eastern © 2010 I must be doing something right. When the L.A. Times puts you in its crosshairs, it's not because you are embarrassing their beloved "conservative movement." And it's not because you are embarrassing yourself. It's usually because you are effective – and you're getting under somebody's skin. A few hours before I dashed off this column, the L.A. Times published this story: "Joseph Farah has found his calling in Obama-bashing." I'll let you judge the paper's mission and motive. But, first, there's a story behind the story. I sat down for a series of interviews with one of the reporters bylined in this piece – Peter Wallsten – about six months ago. He wrapped up the story months ago and turned it in to his editors. It sat around for such a long time that Wallsten ended up leaving the Times and going to work for the Wall Street Journal. He's been there for a couple months. I assumed the story would never see the light of day because it was fair. The story Wallsten wrote never did see the light. At some point, the editors at the L.A. Times looked over the story and determined it made me look responsible, eclectic, maybe even, God forbid, likable. So they turned the story over to another reporter, Faye Fiore. Did she interview me? No. But she rewrote the story nonetheless – with an eye toward making me look like some kind of irresponsible, opportunistic monster. READ FULL STORY >

Fox News' liberal future? ~ By Robert Ringer

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Robert Ringer Posted: January 22, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 I have long considered Rupert Murdoch – a transplanted Australian, of all things – to be one of the greatest American heroes of our time. Like millions of other Americans, he saw the liberal bias in the media, but what made him different is that he had the financial wherewithal to do something about it. In 1996, Murdoch, through his flagship company [N]ews Corporation, started Fox News as an alternative to CNN's addictive liberal coating of the news. And, in what has proven to be a stroke of genius, he hired Roger Ailes as the man to run his new enterprise. Ailes is staunchly conservative, daring and one of those guys who seems to have been born with the Midas touch. While you're at it, you can add him to my list of the greatest American living heroes. Once Fox News was launched, it didn't take the world long to realize a heretofore well-hidden fact: Most Americans have conservative values. Fox was a dagger in the hearts of left-wing anchormen who had long ago become used to creating their own news stories by leaving out pertinent facts and adding in knowingly false information – and, often, simply ignoring news items altogether that didn't fit in with their liberal agenda. The CNN-Fox News war was over within a couple of years, and today it's become a virtual bloodbath. Without government intervention – like that proposed by FCC "Chief Diversity Officer" Mark Lloyd – it's hard to imagine how CNN, CNBC and MSNBC can continue in business indefinitely. Even the three major networks are getting financially clobbered, yet they stubbornly cling to their left-wing agendas, choosing – like Congress and Obama – to ignore the desires of a majority of American viewers and voters. So far, so good. But a few years ago, I dared to ask the question, "What happens when Rupert Murdoch (who will be 79 in March) dies?" Ditto when Roger Ailes passes on or retires. "Could it be," I wondered, "that progressivism, one of the most highly contagious diseases known to mankind, will find a way to creep into Fox News and metastasize?" As it is, Fox already has its share of in-house liberals (Shepherd Smith, Geraldo, Bob Beckel, et al.) to assure the balance in its "fair and balanced" promise. READ FULL STORY >

If you can find a better deal, take it! ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: January 06, 2010 ~ 6:11 pm Eastern © 2010 Someone mentioned Christianity on television recently, and liberals reacted with their usual howls of rage and blinking incomprehension. On a Fox News panel discussing Tiger Woods, Brit Hume said, perfectly accurately: "The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'" Hume's words, being 100 percent factually correct, sent liberals into a tizzy of sputtering rage, once again illustrating liberals' copious ignorance of Christianity. (Also illustrating the words of the Bible: "How is it you do not understand me when I speak? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my words" [John 8:43].) In the Washington Post, Tom Shales demanded that Hume apologize, saying he had "dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet." Is Buddhism about forgiveness? Because, if so, Buddhists had better start demanding corrections from every book, magazine article and blog posting ever written on the subject, which claims Buddhists don't believe in God, but try to become their own gods. I can't imagine that anyone thinks Tiger's problem was that he didn't sufficiently think of himself as a god, especially after that final putt in the Arnold Palmer Invitational last year. In light of Shales' warning Hume about "what people are saying" about him, I hope Hume's a Christian, but that's not apparent from his inarguable description of Christianity. Of course, given the reaction to his remarks, apparently one has to be a regular New Testament scholar to have so much as a passing familiarity with the basic concept of Christianity. On MSNBC, David Shuster invoked the "separation of church and television" (a phrase that also doesn't appear in the Constitution), bitterly complaining that Hume had brought up Christianity "out-of-the-blue" on "a political talk show." Why on earth would Hume mention religion while discussing a public figure who had fallen from grace and was in need of redemption and forgiveness? Boy, talk about coming out of left field! READ FULL STORY >

RELATED VIDEO: January 03, 2010 - We'll keep this all on tape and embarrass you with it at various points...

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

In other words … ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: December 23, 2009 ~ 6:18 pm Eastern © 2009 Irritated at the bumps on the road to the Democrats' Thousand-Year Reich, liberals are now claiming that Republican Sen. Tom Coburn requested a prayer for the death of Sen. Bob Byrd during the health-care debate last Saturday night. Here is what Coburn actually said: "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight. That's what they ought to pray." After reporting Coburn's remark, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank added: "It was difficult to escape the conclusion that Coburn was referring to the 92-year-old, wheelchair-bound Sen. Robert Byrd, (D-W.V.)." Contrary to Milbank's claim, I find it extremely easy to get away from that conclusion. In fact, I'm a regular Houdini when it comes to that conclusion. That conclusion couldn't hold me for a second. There are a million ways a senator could miss a vote, other than by dying. Ask Patrick Kennedy. At 1 a.m. on a Sunday night in the middle of a historic blizzard in the nation's capital, I don't think the first thing that came to anyone's mind was death. More likely it was: "Last call." Milbank was employing the MSNBC motto, "In Other Words," which provides the formula for 90 percent of the political commentary on that network. The MSNBC host quotes a Republican, then says "in other words," translates the statement into something that would be stupid to say, and spends the next 10 minutes ridiculing the translated version. Which no one said. Except the host. Also, by the way, Sen. Coburn did not "go to the Senate floor to propose a prayer," as Milbank reported. He was giving a floor speech in which he used the turn of phrase, "What the American people ought to pray is ..." Inasmuch as liberals want to talk about anything but their plan to take over one-sixth of the American economy, let's talk about health care! Democrats tout Medicare as their model for a government-run health-care system, bragging about what an extremely popular government program it is. Medicare is tens of trillions of dollars in the red. It is expected to go bankrupt by 2017. In order to pay for Medicare alone, the government will either have to cut every other federal program in existence, or raise federal income taxes to rates as high as 77 percent. READ FULL STORY >

MSNBC Exclusive: Fort Hood never happened! ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: November 25, 2009 ~ 5:43 pm Eastern © 2009 It's been weeks since eyewitnesses reported that Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar" before spraying Fort Hood with gunfire, killing 13 people. Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health-care bill). Some wondered if perhaps a pattern was beginning to emerge but were promptly dismissed as racist cranks. We also found out Hasan had business cards printed up with the jihadist abbreviation "SoA" for "Soldier of Allah." Was that enough to conclude that the shooting was an act of terrorism – or does somebody around here need to take another cultural sensitivity class? And we know that Hasan had contacted several jihadist websites and that he had been exchanging e-mails with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen. The FBI learned that last December, but the rest of us only found out about it a week ago. Is it still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism? Alas, it is still too early to tell at MSNBC. For Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews – at least two of whom would be severely punished under Shariah law – the shooting of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, no question. The death of a census taker in Kentucky was also an act of terrorism. (We learned this week that it was a suicide/insurance scam.) But as to Maj. Hasan, the jury is still out – and will be out for many, many years. Actually, according to Keith, the Fort Hood massacre may not have happened at all. He has argued persuasively, on several occasions, that it is impossible, literally impossible, to commit mass murder at a military base. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Palin right, HuffPost wrong ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: November 20, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Sarah Palin haters will stoop to just about anything to malign the woman they most fear – including lying. That's what Huffington Puffington Post columnist Max Blumenthal did Sunday when he claimed the former vice presidential candidate cited an "urban legend" in a speech when she said the Treasury Department had moved the phrase "In God We Trust" from presidential coins. Blumenthal and his pseudo-news organization characterized Palin's statement as a "rumor" that "most likely originated with a 2006 story on the far-right website WorldNetDaily." Actually, it wasn't "a rumor." It was, what we call in the news business, a fact. A year later, Congress, alerted to the plan by the original WND story, stopped the plan dead in its tracks, as WND also reported. That doesn't constitute an "urban legend." That constitutes reporting that led to a policy change. It doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Mint formulated a plan to do exactly what Sarah Palin said it had done. It just means that once the whistle was blown on a plan that would offend the sensibilities of about 90 percent of Americans, Congress acted in line with the will of the people. Blumenthal suggests Palin was believing and spreading an urban legend. Instead, she was stating a fact. "Palin did not hesitate to take up this 'controversy,' however false, since it conveniently pits a tyrannical, God-destroying, secular big government against humble God-fearing folk," Blumenthal writes. "In doing so, of course, she presented herself as this nation's leading defender of the faith." This is how the Huffington Puffington Post begins a column that is supposed to persuade America that Palin is, in Blumenthal's words, "a cancer on the GOP." Do you believe that Blumenthal and the Huffington Puffington Post are really afraid Palin is going to destroy the Republican Party? Do you think they lie awake at night fretting that the GOP is going to self-destruct? It is their fondest wish. It is their dream come true. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Shooter advised Obama transition ~ By Jerome Corsi

From WorldNetDaily

Fort Hood triggerman aided team on Homeland Security task force By Jerome R. Corsi Posted: November 06, 2009 ~ 9:21 am Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily NEW YORK – Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday's massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document. The Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled "Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009," in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant. Hasan received his medical degree from the military's Uniformed Services University School in Bethesda, Md., in 2001. Noting that the Obama administration transition was proceeding, the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute report described on the first page the role of the Presidential Transition Task Force as including "representatives from past Administrations, State government, Fortune 500 companies, academia, research institutions and non-governmental organizations with global reach." While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity. Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre. Video of Hasan at the event, carried originally by C-SPAN and reported by MSNBC, can be seen below:

Video provided by News1News

Kaniewski said Hasan attended the meetings in his capacity as a member of the faculty of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, not as a member of the HSPI Presidential Task Force. Kaniewski believed Hasan applied on the institute's website to attend the meeting and was accepted because of his professional credentials. Kaniewski could not tell WND whether or not Hasan made comments from the audience that influenced the task force recommendations or not. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The cold, hard facts about Fox News ~ By Larry Elder

From WorldNetDaily

By Larry Elder Posted: November 05, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I spoke at a recent town-hall forum. The many issues discussed included the Obama administration's attack on Fox News. Later, one of the audience members came up to me and sneered, "Well, even you must admit that Fox News is biased in favor of Republicans." Separate the opinion guys from the news deliverers. Does Fox focus on stuff that the others – MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS – do not? Yes. Is that stuff more critical of liberals and less critical of conservatives? Yes. The best gauge is who watches these stations. Fox News Channel, as a percentage of viewers, includes more self-described libs and indies than CNN or MSNBC includes self-described conservatives and indies. Pew Research Center recently studied the cable channel viewers' politics. CNN? Fifty-one percent liberal, 23 percent independent and 18 percent conservative. MSNBC? Forty-five percent liberal, 27 percent independent and 18 percent conservative. Don't know about the "fair" part, but Fox's audience was the most "balanced," with 39 percent conservatives, 33 percent liberals and 22 percent independents. I know from my appearances that the audiences differ – at least as to the e-mail I receive. When I appear on Fox, as I did to promote my latest book, "What's Race Got to Do with It," I get mostly approving e-mail. When I get one that disagrees, the writer points out – using facts, information or analogies – what, in his or her opinion, undermines my position. But when I appear on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show – oh, man! Hundreds of hostile e-mails accuse me of everything but the Lincoln assassination. Only rarely, such as when someone took exception to the book's premise – that white racism no longer poses a potent or even significant factor in America – does anyone argue intelligently, with facts or information. It's snarl, attack, name-call. On a recent appearance on Ed Schultz's MSNBC show, I opposed Obamacare – or tried to, given the host's interruptions. The e-mails I received were unprintable. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The truth about journalists' bias ~ By John Stossel

From WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: November 04, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I made the New York Times last week. It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud. Unfortunately, the story was critical. It said, "Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel's speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox." Which "critics" had "leaped"? The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow. I wouldn't think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC as their guide to life. He also quoted an "associate professor of journalism" who said my speeches were "'pretty shameful' by traditional journalistic standards." All this because I spoke at an event for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a "conservative advocacy group." It is odd that this is a news story. In August, AFP hired me to do the very same thing. I give the money to charity. The Times didn't call that "shameful." But in August, I worked for ABC News. Now, I work for Fox. Hmmm. It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career. I was one of America's first TV consumer reporters. I approached the job with an attitude. If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on TV – and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter – the former was a good thing.) I clearly had a point of view: I was a crusader out to punish corporate bullies. My colleagues liked it. I got job offers. I won 19 Emmys. I was invited to speak at journalism conferences. Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats consumers pretty well. The way to get rich in business is to create something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for honesty, and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more. As a local TV reporter, I could find plenty of crooks. But once I got to the national stage – "20/20" and "Good Morning America" – it was hard to find comparable national scams. There were some: Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc. But they are rare. In a $14 trillion economy, you'd think there'd be more. But there aren't. I figured out why: Market forces, even when hampered by government, keep scammers in check. Reputation matters. Word gets out. Good companies thrive, and bad ones atrophy. Regulation rarely deters the cheaters, but competition does. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

A Halloween media nightmare story ~ By Joseph Farah

From WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: October 31, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 There was pompous old Bill O'Reilly again this week attacking one of his favorite targets – "birthers." He had two guests on with him – neither one cognizant of the facts surrounding the Barack Obama eligibility questions. Both of them happily nodded in agreement to most of the tripe emanating from O'Reilly's big, ill-informed mouth. Night after night, show after show, network after network this goes on. This is journalism? Whatever happened to "fair and balanced"? Whatever happened to getting other points of view? Whatever happened to the idea of interviewing those with whom you disagree? Whatever happened to the notion of representing honestly the opinions of others? I'm getting flat-out sick of it. It's not just the Obama flacks at MSNBC and CNN. It's Fox, too. Let's be honest about it. And it's not just the issue of eligibility where minimal journalism standards go right out the window. But it is a perfect illustration of my point. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

RELATED STORY: Who is behind quashing the birth certificate issue? ~ By Joan Swirsky