Fox’s O’Reilly Can’t Apparently Use Footage From His Own Network: Chuckie Schumer “Doesn’t Care” About the “Fairness Doctrine”?

Fox’s Griff Jenkin’s played “chase the politicians” on Capitol Hill Thursday for Bill O’Reilly. As much fun as it was to watch Chuck Schumer speedwalking down a Washington corridor, there was more information available. Why does O’Reilly tell only part of the story? Are we too dense to pay attention long enough?

On Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, the “No-Spin master” did another half story on an issue. I’m becoming more convinced than ever, that either Bill thinks his viewers have the attention spans of gnats, or he has one of the worst research teams in the media business, who don’t even seem to know how to use the internet.

In any case, the half story this evening regarded the Conservative Speech Suppression (aka “Fairness”) Doctrine. He sent reporter Griff Jenkins, to Capitol Hill to do one of those amusing deer-caught-in-the-headlights segments where a reporter chases politicians or other miscreants with a bright light and tries to stick a microphone in their faces whilst they proceed to look like the speedwalker in the banned Mr. T Snickers commercial.

Griff’s mission was to question lawmakers about their position on the Doctrine. During Mr. Bill’s “Talking Points Memo” the audience was treated to the surgically frozen smile of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The second lawmaker to be questioned, and to his credit, the only one of the three who actually stood still, was New Mexico Senator Ted Bingham.

Sen. Schumer of New York, was the third “contestant” and the one which most reminded me of the speedwalker. It’s just too bad Griff hadn’t brought along the tank, the Snickers, or, Mr. T.

Ok, let’s just pause a second an enjoy the visual on that one. [Pausing….visualizing….] Who among us wouldn’t love to watch Mr. T machine gun Chuckie Schumer with Snickers bars?

I can’t embed the O’Reilly video here, but “Talking Points” is the default listing that comes up on the O’Reilly portion of the Fox site. Click the title for the November 20 “Talking Points Memo” ‘Will Fairness Doctrine be reimposed?’

Of course the “Fairness” Doctrine is an important issue and the comments and reaction to reporters’ questions on the issue are interesting and informative viewing.

But, as has become obvious to me, and perhaps I’m just slow-witted or too willing to give the benefit of the doubt, it seems that Bill O’Reilly only tells part of most important stories.

Towards the end of his “Memo” O’Reilly commented that he spoke with Schumer sometime after Grif attempted to speak with him on Thursday afternoon, and Schumer said he “didn’t care about the issue, nor should he”. O’Reilly labeled this response as “a ruse”.

According to Merriam-Webster online:
ruse (noun): a wily subterfuge

Is anyone else tired of tap-dancing? Mr. Schumer’s statements to Bill were neither a “subterfuge” nor “wily”.

Let us call things what they actually are. When a feathered, beaked creature quacks, we call it a duck. When someone says something that is not true, we call it a lie.

And Chuckie Schumer did lie. On November 4, Election Day, on Foxs News Channel, Schumer equated talk radio with pornography. Perhaps after the imbecility of those comments, the estimable Mr. Schumer decided he’d better stop “caring” about the Fairness Doctrine, really quickly. He is right about one thing (kind of like a broken clock, it is accidentally right twice day) he shouldn’t care.

As if the pornography analogy were not enough, Chuckie has additional reason to continue to distance himself from the issue. Apparently he’s taking heat from people. I mean real people, not just people with pointy heads and huge egos.

On Monday, November 17, Mark Levin received a call to his radio show from a woman named Carla, from Brooklyn, New York.

Here is a transcript of the conversation:

Carla: Hi. I am so glad to talk to you and I’m also kind of nervous because I don’t want to end up like Joe the Plumber. Um, I had, an, let’s just say, an altercation with Charlie Schumer in the airport, at La Guardia, on Saturday night, that was pretty extensive and kind of –

Mark: Well, wait a minute, by “altercation” you mean a discussion.

Carla: Well, yeah, a heated discussion, about the Fairness Doctrine. I was deplaning, he was ahead of me, there was a fawning Democrat chick, who came over to him, and was like all over him and I had heard what he had said on, I think it was Fox News, on Election Day, I had heard his comments, about uh, about talk radio, and about the Fairness Doctrine which really repulsed me. So, I saw him there and he had this big smile on his face.

And I just said to him, “Don’t you dare try to take my talk radio away from me.”

And he said to me, “I’m not trying to take your talk radio away from you, but we can’t allow people to be nasty and rude and, and say things that aren’t true.”

And I said, “Are you kidding me? That’s what our democracy is about. Our democracy is messy.” I said, “Our democracy is about being able to be nasty and rude and sarcastic, and wrong when we want, and say opinions that may be wrong when we want. That’s what makes us different than Europe.”

And he, he just started lashing out at me. He told me how ignorant I was. And that they were not going to permit –

Mark: Wait a minute, wait a minute. So in other words, so in other words, he was shrill, and rude, and vile.

Carla: Well, he was obnoxious and shrill, and it was attacking my intelligence and uh, and my I.Q., [Mark: Gee whiz.] and I was dumb. And I told him that there was a very good country that believed in his philosophy and it was called Red China and it sounded like he was talking right out of, uh, Mao’s Red Book, and that that was not what our country was about and that our democracy was unique in that we allowed our discourse to be messy. And that we allowed our discourse to be wrong when it’s wrong. And that’s the nature of democracy.

Mark: Well, let me tell you something. You’re a patriot, uh, I wish more people would engage like you; politely but firmly, confronting the Left. Uh, and you’re not stupid, he’s a moron. And let me tell you Carla, what, what’s really upsetting Schumer. You know what it is, Carla?

Carla: No. I didn’t notice anything upsetting him, he looked pretty smug.

Mark: It’s me. Because he doesn’t like me, my mocking him. I know it gets under his skin because he thinks he’s greater and better than the rest of us. That’s why I mock all of them, to knock them down two or three notches. But when he says, “shrill” and all of that, he’s talking about me. Because he doesn’t like me ’cause I’m in his face, because I’ve challenged him, because I’ve urged him to come on this show, because I know he’s coward. But he’s a menace, he’s a menace to this country, he’s a menace to this society, he’s a menace to the judiciary. I think he should call a hearing. I think he should invite me and a couple of the others, we’ll come up there, and I’d be more than happy to testify under oath, assuming of course, that he would swear in, too, so he could be punished under penalty of perjury. I’d be more than happy to do that, Schmuckie. I’d be more than happy to educate you about the First Amendment, political speech, and if you don’t like it, it’s none of your damn business. I’d be happy to educate you, Schmuckie. What do you think of that, you dope?

And Carla, you’re I.Q. is twice of his. So you’re I.Q.’s about 140.

Carla: Yeah, well, I told him. I said I will fight to the death, for my, for my talk radio, for anyone else, to be obnoxious, to be as loud and as nasty as they want. Because –

Mark: But is he not the most obnoxious member of the Senate?

Carla: Of course, of course he is. But I said the point of our democracy is that we don’t censor our tones, we don’t control our tones.

Mark: Well, of course, of course, you’re right. And you’re extremely intelligent. But he wants to do by brute government force what the Constitution doesn’t allow him to do. You see, the Founding Fathers had dealt with people like Chuck Schumer; they’d dealt with people who would punish people dared to say things they didn’t believe in. They tried to squelch dissent, they tried to squelch free speech and that’s why, when they, when they passed the Bill of Rights, the very first one included the right to free speech, uh, and they would be appalled by Chuck Schumer. But Chuck Schumer doesn’t give a damn. He’s a power hungry menace. Thank you, Carla, God Bless You, and good job. You take care.

So, Bill O’Reilly devotes a “Talking Points Memo” to the topic, featuring Sen. Schumer, who had very recently (Nov. 4) made an ass out of himself on the issue. O’Reilly who works for the same network on which Schumer made his ridiculous statements, doesn’t play the tape. That’s getting your point across effectively, that’s following up. It’s about as effective coverage of the issue as O’Reilly’s was of Obama.

But there was additional information available regarding New Mexico’s Sen. Bingham. Although he was polite and forthright enough to stand still, to not play duck and cover, he is on record elsewhere, letting everyone know exactly where he stands on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine, with more detail and more in-depth information than the twenty seconds Griff spent with him.

In late October, Bingham was interviewed on New Mexico radio station, KKOB, on this issue. You can read more about this HERE and listen to an audio clip of it.

I’m not part of the highly paid staff of the #1 prime time show, on the #1 cable news network. I could find the information. Why can’t Bill O’Reilly?

I’ve begun to believe that with the telling of half-stories, O’Reilly isn’t only doing a disservice to his own viewers, but because he has the largest audience in cable TV, he is rather dangerous.

Advertisements

Obama Was Co-Counsel Against Citibank in 1994 Suit for “Red-lining” – Can You Say ACORN?

Senator Obama Has Said He “Never Organized With ACORN” or “Worked For Them in Any Capacity” and Has Pointed Fingers at Wall Street and Bush’s Policies,  Anyone, and Everyone But Himself (or His Own Party) in the Sub-Prime Mortgage Mess…

But His Associations and Prior Activities Put in Him Directly At Ground Zero of the Financial Crisis and Only Raise Many More Questions

On June 12, 2008, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s campaign set up a website dedicated to fighting “viscous rumors” about the candidate. The site, entitled “Fight the Smears” seems to have a “smear du jour” which it addresses and lists nineteen separate issues on which the campaign apparently feels its candidate has been unfairly “smeared” to date. For instance, the issue of the day, October 9, regards Sen. Obama’s “tangential” relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist-turned Professor of Education and author, William Ayers.

One of the issues addressed concerns the now widely discussed organization, ACORN. The group’s acroynm stands for Associatons of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and describes itself as:

The nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country.  Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation.  ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.

ACORN has a purportedly separate, incorporated entity, that was specifically created to address housing issues:

National non-profit ACORN Housing has been providing free housing counseling to low and moderate income homebuyers since 1987. We have opened HUD-certified, Fannie Mae-approved housing counseling offices across the US, helping over 50,000 families to achieve homeownership.

Obama’s “Fight the Smears” site includes a page with “acornrumor” in the address bar. This page states that “Obama never organized with ACORN.” In addition, the Campaign asserts that Obama never trained for ACORN nor was he employed by them in any other capacity other than his representation of the organization in a 1995 suit against the Justice Department for violations of the “Motor Voter” law in Illinois. Finally, the campaign reports that ACORN was not involved in Obama’s 1992 effort “Project Vote“. The Fight the Smears site addresses accusations by a Ken Blackwell that the campaign describes as a “voter suppression guru”. If Mr. Blackwell, whoever he is, was the only party questioning Mr. Obama’s associations with ACORN, he might be worth looking into. Rumor aside, there is no question that Sen. Obama has a long history with ACORN.

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and an investigative reporter for National Review, has spent months intensively investigating Senator Obama, including his connections with William Ayers and the Annenburg Challenge, and with ACORN. One of many, the article “Inside Obama’s ACORN” best details the organization’s true history, intent, and Obama’s connection with it.

Any spinning Obama and his campaign have done notwithstanding, Mr. Kurtz has done his homework. He cites many sources for his articles. One of those mentioned in “Inside…” is an LA Times article, which quotes ACORN’s Madeleine Talbot:

” ‘He got people to vote with their feet’ on the issue, organizer Madeleine Talbot said. At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff.”

Perhaps Obama and Company intend to play the careful parsing of words game on this issue. It’s wildly reminiscent of “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” However, this one doesn’t pass “the smell test”. Mr. Kurtz’s article begins with, “What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along?” Mr. Kurtz may not know how right he was. Unbelievably, on the Obama campaign site, there is a “Community Blog” post by a Sam Graham-Felsen dated February 21, 2008, which details, among other things, how Obama himself, addressing ACORN leaders in November, 2007 said:

“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career.  Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

The unbridled arrogance of Mr. Obama, his campaign, and the media truly leaves one speechless. None of these superior beings apparently anticpates that any of us know how to read or work our way around a search engine.

It is not surprising that the tip-toeing through the tulips on the ACORN issue is in full swing, considering the recent public outrage at the possibility of additional ACORN funding being slipped into the recent Bailout Bill and rapidly mounting reports of voter fraud by the organization.

The community organizations element of ACORN is the official entity currently embroiled in voter registration fraud in twelve states throughout the country. ACORN’s Political Director in Ohio, Mari Engelhardt, admitted on Tuesday, October 7, that it couldn’t “perfectly” prevent fraud. ACORN attorney Teresa James admitted, “We do not have the resources to know if a particular card is fictitious.”

Late this evening (Oct. 9), a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judge issued a temporary restraining order against Ohio Attorney General Jennifer Brunner because, to paraphrase the information relayed by Greta Van Susteren during her show, On the Record, “Brunner is not doing enough to investigate voter fraud.” The Attorney General intends to appeal the ruling. Despite my extensive efforts to discover detailed information about the ruling, there is nothing as of yet available online.

Apparently, all of the above concerns prompted House of Representatives Minority Leader from Ohio, John Boehner, to call today for all federal funding to ACORN to stop as well as for a prohibition against any candidates for federal office contracting with ACORN for campaign work.

Obviously, the outcome of the voter fraud problems are yet to be determined as are any actions that result from Sen. Boehner’s proposals. The second appeal from Boehner results directly from the fact that Barack Obama, despite denying any connection with ACORN, contracted with Citizen’s Services, Inc, a subsidiary of ACORN for services rendered to his campaign in the amount of $800,000. As an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on August 22, 2008, details, Citizen’s Services, Inc. was described on an ACORN publication in 2006 as “‘ACORN’s campaign services entity”‘. Besides ACORN’s own publication, the article also details that the headquarters of Citizen’s Services, Inc., are listed as existing at the same address as ACORN’s national headquarters. As the links above note, there is ample information available that confirms the assertion is true. I intend to spend further time looking at the address, 1024 Elysian Fields, New Oreleans, LA, and for further newinformation on ACORN and Citizen’s Services, Inc., as my researching their addresses reveals a large number of other organizations at the same address, which must mean this is a huge building or there are some questions that need to be raised. Further, the tax-exempt database I linked for the ACORN address above displays that ACORN keeps its money in an offshore bank account in the Virgin Islands, which I find just plain odd.

It is clear that Citizen’s Services and ACORN are essentially one and the same. The Obama for America campaign initially reported a varied list of services that the group was supposed to have performed (see the sidebar in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article linked above) that seem curiously out of place, considering the nature of the organization. The campaign ultimately revised its reports, citing simple filing error. The revision is to report the services of Citizen’s as “field work”.

Not only is it disturbing that Mr. Obama and his campaign believe that denying any connection to ACORN is plausible, it is disturbing that the ACORN entity in Louisiana appears to be registered as the incorporated housing entity. It is troubling because the organization receives federal funds and calls in to question why this federally funded group would have any connection with an affliate that performs campaign services. There is a clear conflict of interest, at the very least. ACORN, in any form, having been the recipient of tax dollars, should not be working for any political candidates nor should it be endorsing them. The left-wing publication The Nation, proudly crowed on February 23, 2008, that ACORN’s PAC had given Obama it’s “important endorsement”. Yes, in addition to ACORN’s many other tentacles, the organization seems to have a Political Action Committee. The above mentioned “Community Blog” is actually a report of ACORN’s endorsement of Obama for President.

The only relationship Obama publicly owns in regards to ACORN is his work as an attorney for them in suing the Justice Dept. per the Motor Voter Law. Besides all of the other connections, it appears that there is another legal case Mr. Obama has failed to mention.

In 1994, Obama was one of the attorneys listed on a lawsuit against Citibank in which the plaintiffs claim the bank was engaged in “red-lining” or refusing to grant mortgages to people in particular neighborhoods in Chicago.

Clicking here will allow you to see actual final documents in the case. It is a .PDF file.

Clicking here will allow you to see detailed records of the case at a site called “The Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House”

Note that the case is entitled “Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank”. Due to the nature of such a case, which, to the best of my understanding, requires an individual private citizen or citizens as plaintiffs, and not a non-profit organization, ACORN’s name is not listed anywhere in the documentation. In order for the plaintiff to have standing in the case, they have had to have been damaged. Since ACORN as an entity doesn’t apply for mortgages on private homes for itself, it cannot sue banks, and so the organization most likely found some victims to prove its point.

Even if this particular case has no connection whatever to ACORN, and that looks most likely not plausible at this stage, it is clearly a tactic straight out of the ACORN playbook. There is no denying that Mr. Obama engaged in filing a lawsuit that had the same purpose as pushing for more and more people to be granted loans who couldn’t afford them. These kinds of measures share not only the same purpose, they had the same effect: the collapse of the sub-prime lending market, in addition to terrible monetary policy by the FED, have led us to the current financial crisis.

Citibank likely rejected loan applications for homes in the neighborhoods that were “red-lined” because they were graded as areas for high-risk of default or were of market values that were so low, the costs of establishing and servicing mortgages for homes in those areas exceeded any potential profit. In other words, Citibank was likely employing sound business practice and attempting to avoid granting mortgage loans to people who they had deemed were at high risk for default.

Lawsuits like Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank directly contributed to forcing banks to grant risky mortgages. It again, is not surprising that Obama makes no mention of any such measures taken by “community organizations” or attorneys that helped to lead to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Instead, he blames the Bush policies and capitalism. There is no question that Pres. Bush, his Treasury Secretary, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board deserve much blame for the current crisis, but the entire strategy of giving loans to people who couldn’t afford them, gets at least half of the blame.

Besides his involvement in the Citibank suit, Obama received $105,849 from Fannie Mae and its employees since being elected to the Senate in 2006. That makes him the #3 recipient on the list. He is only topped by Connecticut Sen. Dodd at $133,900 and Massuchusetts Sen. John Kerry at $111,000. The list actually records all donations received from 1989-2008. Dodd has been in office since 1981, meaning the amount he has received may have been spread out over the last seven years, and the same is true for Sen. Kerry, who has also been in office for much longer than the term of the report. Sen. Obama has been campaigning for much of his first term in the Senate, and has reportedly spent 141 actually serving in Washington, D.C., since taking office. That means he received $756 in contributions from Fannie Mae and its employees for every day he served.

It’s hard to imagine that kind of money has no influence on a politician’s policy decisions. Further, it causes one to wonder why Fannie Mae executives and employees thought the Senator was so worthwhile an investment? Could it be that the continued reckless practices of out-of-control lending were concepts he particularly endorsed? Put together with his involvement the Citibank suit, tax policies of forced “fairness”, belief that healthcare is a “right”, and intent to tax businesses at high rates, it doesn’t take a leap to understand that Fannie Mae would find a friend in Barack Obama.

The questions that beg asking are: Where is the media to ask these questions? Why didn’t they dig up the information about the Citibank suit?

No Wonder the Democratic Party’s Symbol is an….A#$!

What a shocker….many Democrats are RUDE!

Is anyone else completely fed up with many members of that so oft self-described “tolerant”  party besides myself? While many conservatives are cowering in the corner, afraid to open their mouths for fear of being called “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, “religious freak”, “stupid”, “crazy”, “bitter”, an on and on and on…..The blue party of the donkey, a.k.a the a$$, seems to have a disproportionate number of neanderthals in its ranks. Why don’t their fellow members call them out?

I know, I know: It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid

I personally observed some very classy behavior from a group of Obama-Biden protesters just this Sunday, October 5, in Omaha, Nebraska. This lovely bunch took out time from their Sunday afternoon and evening to stand across the street from the ever-growing line of Palin supporters to what end, one can only guess. Many of the signs were childishly insulting.

Wonder if Madeleine Albright meant these kind of women?

Wonder if Madeleine Albright meant these kind of women?

Those of us out here in fly-over country aren’t accustomed to protesters (except occasionally near the University of Nebraska at Lincoln campus).  Besides a number of insulting signs, which were, interestingly enough, largely wielded by women, this nice group of folks took the opportunity to periodically shout nonsense across the street. While we Palin supporters were waiting in line, some of us chatted about the silliness of it all. To the woman in front of me, I queried, “Why aren’t there ever any Republican protesters?” While it was essentially a moot question, she replied that we have better sense, and better things to do with our time, apparently.

In addition to witnessing this group of classless rabble personally, there are some recent examples of similar rabble-like behavior by Democrat public figures and their entourages.

Last night, after the Presidential Debate in Nashville, Senator Claire McCaskill exemplified a high-degree of class when she handed Gov. Mitt Romney the earpiece she had just finished using when interviewed on MSNBC, as he was up next.

“I spit on this before I put it in,” she said to Romney, with a sweet smile.

Politico’s Ben Smith witnessed the exchange. You can read the full blurb here. You will note that McCaskill’s spokesperson later tried to explain away McCaskill’s remark, but apparently Mr. Smith was predisposed to believe McCaskill has a habit of behaving this way. How ladylike she seems to be.

What is definitely more interesting is a post by CBS reporter Dean Reynolds on his “Reporter’s Notebook” on October 7. After having traveled with the Obama campaign for over twelve months, he is now traveling with the McCain campaign. The comparison he draws between the two operations is not flattering to Obama and Company.

I find it interesting that Mr. Reynolds didn’t comment about the incident on June 7 wherein press members were packed onto the campaign plane, left to sit on the run way, and then flown to Chicago, only to be told mid-air that Barack Obama was not on the plane. They had been misled into believing otherwise earlier. The linked New York Times article doesn’t quite convey the level of anger many in the press felt at the time. The deliberate subterfuge was intended to provide cover for a secret meeting with Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s close rival in the Democratic primaries.

While neither a reporter nor a Democrat, I found the entire June 7 incident distasteful simply because it made me wonder how much subterfuge a President Obama might engage in to hide events?

Besides finding oafish behavior, well, just plain, oafish, I also find it sad and frustrating. We’re constantly being lectured to by pundits and even some politicians about “bi-partisanship”. We’re told that we have to find “common ground” and “make compromises”. I don’t know about anyone else, but I have not intention of finding common ground nor making compromises with people who don’t know how to behave civilly.

Conservatives had better learn quickly that there is no point in cowering in the corner. They will be called every name in the book, shouted at, and degraded simply for being….well, conservative.