Blame it on the Rain… Or Rush… Or Coulter… Or…

Silent Majority No MoreLast week we saw yet another horrible act committed by a man that was obviously demented and mentally screwed in the head. He decided to walk into the National Holocaust Museum and begin shooting. He shot and killed a security guard before being shot himself by other guards at the site. The reaction from the main stream media has been, on several fronts, to link the killer to conservative causes and further to say that this deranged man was spurred on by conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly. I find this “reporting” by the MSM despicable. Not only is it dishonest, and hateful, it is hypocritical. I have had just about as much of the liberal media as I can take at this point, and I have decided that I am going to continue to pound home the pieces of trash that they have become for as long as it takes.
 

Media Bias BedAllow me first to offer the only defense that I am going to offer for Fox News. Fox News offers fairly accurate news during the course of its day. I don’t find their reporting to be overly biased in terms of reporting the news. Unlike most of the liberal media, they seem willing to give us the bad news about people, regardless of which party they fall in. The MSM only tells you when it is someone from the right who does something bad, unless it is so big they can’t not cover it. Otherwise the same action on page one by a GOP personality will be on page B21 when committed by a Dem personality. I think you all know me well enough to know that I wouldn’t hesitate to say so if I thought otherwise. I have seen a bit of a slant begin to enter into some of their stuff, but only a bit thus far. However, once you get to the evening, they turn the station over to conservative commentators such as O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck. And I am OK with that because those guys don’t claim to be unbiased or to be journalist. They fully admit that they present conservative points of view. I submit that those making the big claims of bias against Fox News have not watched very much of it, and probably even less that wasn’t during the nighttime commentator portions. 

In O’Reilly’s case, he presents the facts as he sees them and claims to have “no spin”. I won’t go as far as saying that he has no spin. But I haven’t seen him offer up information that he knows to be false. I find O’Reilly to be sometimes clueless, often arrogant, and prone to believing the worst about the left. But I don’t find him to be dishonest. Hannity is a pure conservative, no holds barred, and will twist anything to make it appear the conservative cause is just. Enough said there. Beck, I see as a lot like me. Tired of both parties. Pointing out what he sees, and adding his perspective on it. He doesn’t like the liberal positions because they don’t make sense to him. But he isn’t fascinated with the conservative positions all the time either. So for all the haters, don’t try to use these three guys as your ammunition to prove that Fox is as biased as CNN, MSNBC, the Big Three networks, etc… Because when it comes to news, they are fair. 

James Von BrunnAnd let me be up front with my assessment of this shooter, James von Brunn, and the other folks who have acted out of late. Brunn cannot be called right wing or left wing. He can be called wingnut. He was crazy. And trying to pin him as the poster child for the left or the right is dishonest. I say the same thing about the fruitcake who shot abortion doctor George Tiller. He was not a right winger, and trying to paint him that way is dishonest and despicable. 

Now, let’s start with this shooting and the media coverage of it. James von Brunn was an 88 year old white supremacist. He was a Holocaust denier and he absolutely hated jews. He spewed his hatred all over the web and derided the “browning” of America and the fact that the Jews “run everything”. He also made it clear that white America deserved to die for letting this happen. His writings included hatred of neoconservatives, a hatred of George W. Bush, and the belief that 9/11 was an inside job pulled off by the Bush administration. He hated Obama as well, and felt that the Jews had put him in office. He had plans outlined to perform attacks on the Washington Journal and Fox News. He did think that Palin was treated unfairly (so do I. Does that make me an extremist?). This guy was a wack job and he hated everybody. 

So upon his committing this horrible act, what immediately popped out there? From MSNBC, we got the immediate information that he was a right wing extremist, both in TV coverage and articles such as this one which stated:

The Homeland Security Department called the shooting a criminal incident and said it does not appear to have a connection to terrorism, according to a joint Homeland Security and FBI assessment issued Wednesday. The assessment, obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, said von Brunn is associated with right-wing extremism. (bolding mine)

Joy Reid

Joy Reid

The Reid Report wanted to jump in. According to her raving self review, “Joy-Ann “Joy” Reid’s columns and articles have appeared in The Miami Herald, the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, on Salon.com, Commondreams.org and in The South Florida Times, where she covers local and national news and writes the occasional column.” Her column, appropriately titled “James Von Brunn: another right wing nut acting out” was entirely dedicated to showing how this is the work of a right wing extremist. If you can stomach it, you can read it here. If you can’t, here are some excerts:

  • Von Brunn is also apparently part of the Obama “Birther” movement: the wingnuts who question Barack Obama’s citizenship … still … (led by their godfather, Rush Limbaugh) He even wrote a book about his … um … complaints… And his writings further reveal him to be adamantly pro-Bush and pro-Sarah Palin.
  • Hm … guns … anti-government paranoia … federal reserve conspiracy theories … white supremacist movement… hey, remember back when the righties got all hot and bothered about this? (referring to the bullshit DHS right wing extremist report) Janet Napolitano may want to take back that apology now.
  • Michelle Malkin did post about the shooting after all. But she claims, nonsensically, that Von Brunn was NOT, I repeat NOT … a right winger.

Over at the “Gawker”, an extremely popular left wing website, and found in this article entitled “The Rise of Right Wing Violence”:

When the Department of Homeland Security issued a report warning of potential violence by “right-wing extremists,” the right-wingers of the internet were enraged. Then some right-wing extremists started killing people.

Three—three!—political shootings by right-wing extremists does actually make a trend, mostly because it’s not accidental that the crazies are turning violent now. Right-wing domestic terror, weirdly, spikes when the right-wing media step up the intensity and violence of their rhetoric—which they happen to do when Democrats are in charge. Hey, remember Oklahoma City? Guess what: now we don’t just have a regular Democrat president, we have a black man who is a secret Muslim! Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney and Bill O’Reilly (I have never heard any of these three tell people that Obama is a terrorist or a muslim) tell the nuts that the nation is literally in danger because a terrorist has stolen the White House. So what happens then?

What happens is Scott Roeder, the Kansas resident who murdered Dr. George Tiller at church because he was an anti-abortion fanatic with ties to, hey, a right-wing extremist group.

There was Jim Adkisson, who shot up a Unitarian church, killing two, because he hated liberals and gays.

And now there is the White Supremacist who just shot up the goddamn Holocaust Museum.

niewert_authorphotoLet’s not stop there shall we? David Neiwert is a liberal journalist who has been running a liberal blog in the Northwest for years. He has worked for MSNBC and CNN. He even has a liberal blogger award named after him. The Northwest Progressive Institute annually presents the David Neiwert Awards to progressive liberal bloggers. He was interviewed by Anderson Cooper for a CNN report on “the Lone Wolf Right Wing Extremists”. He wrote a blog the night of the interview which you can find here and which includes rhetoric like this:

Now, here’s the odd thing about “lone wolves”: Right-wingers like to use the solitary nature of this kind of terrorist act to dismiss them as “isolated incidents.” But in reality, the continuing existence of acts of this nature demonstrates primarily that the radical right in America is alive, well, and functioning better than it should. And the continuing — and as we’ve seen this week, ultimately futile — attempts by the right to whitewash their existence from the public consciousness have played no small part in helping that trend continue.

There has been no dearth of lone wolves in the years since Beam set the strategy for the radical right: Eric Rudolph. Buford Furrow. Benjamin Smith. James Kopp. Jim David Adkisson. And now add Scott Roeder and James von Brunn to the list. That’s quite a trail of “isolated incidents,” isn’t it?

So when Bill O’Reilly shrugs the Holocaust Museum shooting off onto the dustbin of that lengthening list of “isolated incidents,” you have to ask yourself why. After all, a “lone wolf” just rid him of that meddlesome doctor, didn’t he? Funny how conveniently that works out for O’Reilly.

You know what? I can do this all day, and everyone who reads this, no matter which side of the aisle they fall on, knows that I can. It makes no sense to continue. There are a couple of things that miff me about these types of attacks and attempts to link obviously deranged individuals to conservatives. First is the fact that it is just hateful and dishonest. Folks on the right in politics don’t think this way. Since when do neo-nazis represent the average, or even not average, Republican? Since when do anti-semites represent the Right? They don’t, and level headed people know this to be true, yet the MSM is attempting to create that link. And we all know that there are many Americans walking around today thinking that Republicans are racists and anti-semitic and pro-hitler because of this coverage. 

Right Wing Extremist?

Right Wing Extremist?

Let’s look at a list of some famous anti-semites shall we? How about Emmanuel Kant (yes that Kant that Rand refuted). Louis Farakhan. Mel Gibson. William Shakespeare. TS Eliot. HG Wells. Henry Ford. Thomas Edison. Bobby Fischer. How about many of the founding fathers? Those are just a few. And the list is extensive as I am sure you can imagine. And you know what, they are as varied in political background as the American landscape itself. Pinning it on the right is ridiculous and dishonest. I would expect it if it was coming from Jeanine Garofalo’s hateful mouth or Sean Penn’s gaping pie hole. But this is being pushed by the media. And when it is not pushed by them, it is at least supported and not refuted by them. And that really pisses me off. 

And this notion that the blood is on the hands of people like Bill O’Reilly because he spouted off about Tiller on numerous occasions is bullshit. O’Reilly never told anyone to kill Tiller. He has never told anyone to kill anyone. Attempting to discredit O’Reilly by somehow trying to link these deranged individuals to them is dishonest and disingenuous. Interestingly, on the very day of the Holocaust Museum shooting there was another big story in the news. It seems on that very same day that an anti-semitic wacko committed this act, The honorable Reverend Jeremiah Wright was all over the news for saying that the Jews won’t let Obama talk to him. Odd that no one is bringing up Reverend Wright as a possible cause of acts committed by insane people. 

Palin Us CoverUs Cover Obama 1I have had about as much of the lying and dishonesty that I can take from today’s main stream media. I am no longer interested in hearing from the left that the media bias doesn’t exist. I don’t care what report you want to bring me. I have read well over 300 reports on media bias over the last 8 years or so. I know what they all say. And I know what I can see with my own two eyes. It takes me back to a saying a good friend of mine, Kenni, used to always say: “Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin eyes?”. I am not an idiot, and I think I have shown my readers that I look at things honestly and attempt to ferret out the truth in everything. And my honest eyes are telling me that the media is decidedly in bed with the left. And they are killing America. It has crossed over now into the very widely read rags like Us Magazine and People and Newsweek. I recall Us running a picture of Palin on the cover one week with the headline “Babies, Lies, and Scandal” followed the next week by Obama’s cover with the headline “Why Barack Loves Her”. Much like the public schools, they have a dramatic amount of control over a fairly ignorant general population. And it is time to wake America up from this hypnotic trance that they are in.

Comments

  1. Good post.

    No sarcasm from me on this.

    I stopped watching and reading the MSM a long time ago.

    However, I do watch Glenn Beck regularly . . . I refer to him as my daily dose of insanity 😉

    • USWeapon says:

      Beck can be a dose on insanity. But I also find him to be extremely entertaining. And I do think that he thinks along the lines of many main stream Americans. The left hates him because he calls them out regularly. I love the fact that he does just that. I tend to think if I had a job as a commentator, I would be a lot like him.

  2. As an outsider looking in on American news channels I can fairly say that both MSNBC and fox news are both terrible with only CNN being the channel I would watch and even they are pretty bad. Glenn Beck is clearly acting into his role if not then he is insane, if I need a good laugh I watch the youtube clip of him pretending to cry on one of his shows.
    Both MSNBC and Fox news are clearly biased regarding reporting the political spectrum, what amazes me is the amount of people who say they only watch one news channel. When I read the news I get it from as many viewpoints as I can, BBC, Reuters, all the major newspapers here and Al Jazeera is probably the best source for information in the middle east. I would never take information from one source and the people who do are no better than sheep.

    As why the media publishes articles like the Palin/Obama thing you need to understand that the media is not a charity and they are there to make a profit. You have just come out of 8 years of having an unpopular president both domestically and internationally and the right took a fairly heavy beating in the last few years. The media is selling to the majority and not the minority so they tailor their articles likewise.

    • So you think CNN and Al Jazeera are the best news sources?

      I discarded all of the Mainstream News Media long ago . . . I now search the internet for what is the real news without their own political bias added, and even then that isn’t 100% unbiased.

      BTW, since you are an outsider . . . Where are you an insider?

      • A Brit, I never said CNN were the best but they are the best of a bad bunch when it comes to American news channels. Also Al Jazeera have been pretty good with news reporting and tend to tell things how it is. Do I take just their word for it? No, but I use it as one of the more reliable sources of information. As long as humans are reporting the news and we do not have robots doing it news articles will always show bias.

      • I’m an outsider too. BBC and CNN are definetly awful channels.

        The only channel I don’t consider as MSM is FOX News and I hope they can hold their stand.

        • Just curious…to Bob and Manuel, is the media that slanted in the UK as well?

          • Nah the BBC is alright, they are funded by the public so they are not as sensationalistic as other 24/7 news networks. All our media is slanted I would not say to the levels of MSNBC and Fox News though. You have your left and right wing newspapers, Sky News here is equivalent to your Fox News (Murdoch owns both) but again no where near as slanted as Fox, BBC seems to be leaning a bit right. I dont trust any one source, everyone has an agenda.

            • When you say FOX is slanted, are you speaking of the News Reporters or the Commentators such as O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck?

              • All of it. I stopped watching Fox News a while ago, I see the odd montage clip on youtube to remind me how bad it is. Fox is geared to the right just as MSNBC is geared to the left they are both as bad as each other and they are both terrible.

              • Perhaps I am looking at it with blinders on, but FOX at least presents the left’s argument. Or perhaps you do not get the true “feel” of the MSM’s bias due to being removed from the situation somewhat. It might surprise you (or perhaps you know) that Shepard Smith is a Democrate…a so called Blue Dog Democrate.

                FOX has, on many occasions, questioned the Bush admisistration’s actions. They now question many of President Obama’s policy’s…IMO rightly so. O’Reilly backs up some of President Obama’s positions when he feels the President is unfairly judged. Hannity I see as a full fledged Obama basher, so I take what he says with a grain of salt. Beck makes no bones about being a conservative and a backer of the Constitution. His views seem to mirror mine.

                It is interesting to hear opinions from outside our borders, thanks for providing that perspective.

              • hmmmmm maybe so but anything that can produce this abomination http://www.foxnation.com should not be used as a credible news source. You would be much better getting your news from other sources. We are lucky we have the internet due to the amount of information we can get to with the click of a button.

              • The link you post does not offend me. It is a different view than is depicted on the other News sources…Every American News outlet, unfortunately, has to be looked at with scrutiny. Without FOX, there would be no balance whatsoever in American televised News.

              • Bama dad says:

                The Fox Nation is not Fox News. The Nation is a combination of headlines that is for “people who believe in the United States of America and its ideals.” That website is geared toward and is a blog for the conservative base in America. Google Fox News and you will get the regular news type stories that are commonly published. Tell the whole story; don’t pick parts that show only what you want to be shown. 😈

                http://www.foxnews.com/

              • USWeapon says:

                I will agree with Bama on this one. Fox Nation is not Fox News. One is a conservative opinion site and the other is a news network. I don’t judge NBC by its forums.

              • Bama dad says:

                I like Beck. He is a conservative that wants smaller government and more personnel responsibility from the citizens of this country. If you can wade through his showbiz routine he does have some good things to say. 😆

              • I’ve watched him since his CNN days, and agree with most of what he has to say.

              • USWeapon says:

                I think that of Beck as well. A lot of grandiosity, but underneath it all I think his message and his beliefs mesh with many Americans.

              • USWeapon says:

                I have to disagree with you Bob. You simply have no grounds to compare Fox News with MSNBC. I can accept the opinion that Fox is not unbiased. Everyone sees things a bit differently, but to compare them, or anyone else for that matter, to the absolute lunacy of MSNBC is a stretch. The interesting thing for me is that you stated you stopped watching Fox a long time ago. It was not until the last year or so that I saw them start to lose their non-biased platform. I try to look at things objectively, but I will stand by my statement that those who claim Fox News is extremely biased….. don’t watch it. They generally take that opinion from their liberal friends who also…. don’t watch it.

              • We could argue this all day, those with conservative leanings are going to say Fox is so much better than MSNBC, those on the left are going to say MSNBC is so much better than Fox. Unless you have some sort of biasometer we are going to struggle with this, I say they are no better than entertainment shows and should be treated as such. I dont need a talking head to tell me what to think I will gather the information myself from multiple sources and make my own mind up.
                If people want to take their information from one source such as Fox, MSNBC, CNN whatever, then they are idiots.
                Also how often do you watch MSNBC? Do you spend the same amount of time watching that as well as Fox? If not how can you justify your claims of the difference between the two?

      • Terry,

        the channels here are much worse. I found it very funny when Bob said that BBC is alright and not that sensational because it’s funded by the public.

        Funded by public means that everyone here is forced to pay 25 dollars a month if he/she has a TV at home. Even if you block out the public channels you still have to pay. They even are going to force you to pay a fee if you have a computer with internet access at home. Hint: If you live on welfare you won’t have to pay of course.

        And here’s the problem (USW, Black Flag and many other people are well aware of what happens when the state gets more and more control):

        Does anyone honestly think that those public channels will ever report in favor of less government/less taxes or more individual freedom? If they did they would lose their influence and maybe their jobs so this will never happen. We don’t have any channel like FOX News in whole Europe. We have lots of public channels and private ones but they all can be considered as MSM. They are leftist and politically correct. To delude the public that is what they and the private ones do.

        Sorry to say this but I’m about to throw up everytime I see what happens with the money I’m forced to pay for those channels. They invite members of the communist party to every discussion and treat them like normal politicians. They dare to report about the crime wave we see in nearly every city here in Germany because it is mainly migration based. They blame capitalism for everything and the most important thing is that they also have all those retarted shows and soaps for people who live on welfare and watch TV the whole day like the private channels have in order to make it as relaxing as possible for them.

        I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, in fact I hate them but to be true Europe will cease to exist by the year of 2050. Bob won’t say so but England is one of the countries that will fall first because of their huge muslim population and dhimmitude towards them. France, Germany etc. will follow.

        Welcome to Saudi Britain

        I warn America to follow us. America reached a crossroads, Europe has already decided to decline. Not only because of the muslim population that mainly is jobless but reproduces in a way that they will be a majority by 2050 but because of our welfare system that punishes people who work and are honest in order to take their money and put it into socialistic propaganda, in order to pay these millions of civil servants and in order to pay these millions of welfare receivers and most importantly to pay these millions of babies that are born in families with low social status (you get 250 dollars for every child per months which is a good reason for everyone on welfare to increase their income). The people get hooked on socialism and through that won’t do anything against it. Socialism spreads like cancer here although on the European election one week ago most countries voted right of center. In my eyes it’s too late, Europe is chewing on its substance and demography/migration will do the rest.

        This system is going to collapse with or without a new giant financial crysis the question is when.

        • Would it be safe to say you are a supporter of Mr. Daniel Hannon? It sure sounds like you would be.

          • Ye, he is a great speaker, I’m a big fan of him, how do you know him?

            • USWeapon says:

              Manuel,

              He has gained a bit of notoriety here in the states because of his speeches. I tend to like him as well. Speaks his mind for sure.

        • I personally do not agree with the adoption of Sharia Law here in the UK, our laws should be paramount and non-discriminatory.

          As regards muslim families having more kids than say your average member of the UK, I dont think there is anything that can be done about that. Tell people to have more kids? We have a problem where couples would rather have a new car than a kid, they are much happier going on holiday by themselves and not having to worry about kids. Should we force pregnancies?

          The western population decrease is going to be a huge issue, capitalism is built on constant growth, less people means less things sold. Japan is starting to realise that their work ethic has basically messed up a generation, long work hours means less kids, some Japanese companies are now letting their employees go home early once a week so they can have sex. They are also offering cash incentives for kids born.
          The world is stuck in a horrible state, if we start having less kids than we will eventually have a messed up financial system and old people will outnumber the young meaning that they will not be able to be supported. We start having lots of kids again and the worlds resources dwindle and we are screwed again.
          The only solution I can see to the problem is discovering a non toxic, limitless supply of energy and finding other planets we can expand to. The outlook does not look good.

        • Nicolas Krebs says:

          “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU” (Manuel)

          See a debunk of this faked video (although funny, especially the 8.1 children/woman fertility rate of Muslims in France) in Tiny Frog, Muslim Demographics, 2009-05-03, Duncan Macleod, Muslim Demographics on YouTube Abuse of Statistics, 2009-05-11, Steve Letendre, Muslim Demographics Debunked, 2009-05-26.

    • Well Bob as another outside looking in, after watching CNN since its first day aired, I believe myself to have a firm grasp on my southern neighbor’s various tics. Having been actually watching CNN on the morning of September 11 where I and my wife watched live Aaron Brown reporting from a rooftop wherein a plane slams into one of the trade towers in behind him in real-time, I can honestly say I had invested at the very least 4 hours a day every day into watching CNN and was well versed in its leanings. The day we changed the channel here for good was when reports of Obama’s Chicago politics made the CBC and not CNN during the Democratic runoff. We actually waited DAYS for CNN to catch up to that paradigm of American journalism the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It did not but a friend of mine told me another called Fox News had covered such. So we then switched to Fox News, whom I had NEVER before watched, pushed along by CNN’s omissions rather than Fox News’ content and have been there ever since.

      As for agendas, all those I’ve been able to locate who genuinely have none also share the trait of themselves being deceased. Understand this and every news organization in the world can be watched and useful information gathered once sifted through your own bull-o-meter’s filtration system. That most news agencies are themselves after market share should also be instantly obvious to any. They bare the leanings of their owners, period.

      I’ve never been too charged by American politics until it came to light that our local potash mine was funneling hundreds of millions over the years to prop up phosphate mines in Florida in order to meet political debts. Since then I’ve kept an eye on any Canadian company’s owned by American interests and indeed watch the news for the earliest signs of that next round of fleecing.

      To blithely compare MSNBC to Fox News is sophomoric. Fox News would have to put Hannity on 24/7 in order to compete with that level of hateful rhetoric. Their last ranting on this supposed “right wing” James von Brunn was inept at best and much better suited to a “you know what I think… hic” between two drunks. There’s a better argument that he was spurred into action by his age than any other. Once his leanings hit the light of day my first answer to “why” was relevancy. A great many of the worst things done, from government to street gangs and madmen alike are done in an attempt to secure relevancy. For good or bad and in the historical record or merely neighborhood lore, they all want to be counted. That this point was missed off the line speaks volumes about the main stream media as a whole.

      • Bama dad says:

        Alan:
        I find myself in uncharted territory, as I have to agree with all you have just stated. 😯

      • I still don’t understand why people would watch either Fox or MSNBC when the internet is around, again they are both slanted to the extreme. We can source news information locally. I remember when Russia went into Georgia, I was able to get information from Western sources, Russian sources and then went onto an international forum I am a member of and heard what people from Georgia and South Ossetia were saying.
        Why would I need to get information from one talking head especially those clearly biased in their political stance?
        Also I don’t think the “Fox spews slightly less hateful garbage than MSNBC!” is a very good argument, I am sure those leaning from the left who watch MSNBC say the exact some things about Fox News but reversed. Murdoch has found his niche with Fox News, he will happily support and own left sided news outlets as long as it turns a buck.

        • Bama dad says:

          Most of my news is from the internet. The only talking head I watch for news is Shepard Smith. I like my news slated right of center.

        • Alan F. says:

          No one has referred to it more so than I as the glass teat for a reason. Yes, I’m a reader and well versed in the virtues of the usenet as well as the various text journals we were passing around on BBS systems around the world. I even still have my uncle’s first acoustic coupler, which became my first also, somewhere in storage along with the Trash 80 we built. Anyone else remember seeing punch cards at work?

          Obviously “Fox spews slightly less hateful garbage than MSNBC!” is your own and not a quote of mine as I’ve never made so lame a defense of anything since grade school. You add the “slightly less” in the same manner as the IPCC itself went to a “descriptive” from a numerical with regard to the “level of certainly” (laughed for days) of the validity of conclusions drawn from their own interpretation of the data sets they chose to use in the first place. To me omission is a far greater sin than tilt in that you afford the watcher/listener/reader no chance whatsoever at forming their best opinion with an incomplete data set. Arguing acceptable degrees of omission with regard to “news” in relation to political bias is what I would consider an indefensible position.

          TV is very much what it was intended to be after the science of communication got out of the way, another form of entertainment. Even the presentation of the “News” has been subject to all the dressings of salesmanship.

          • Alan. How Dee Dude. The best way to describe the view of all our news outlets is that “if it bleeds, it leads”.

            You are exactly right. TV is nothing but entertainment and the news has become the same. After all, like every other show on television, they must sell advertising and must entertain to do so.

            I get BBC and can tell you that they are very much biased to the left. How could they be anything else? As Manuel said, they are sponsored by the Government and toe the Government line. PBS is the same way in America.

            I have found that Fox tends to prefer the Conservative view just as MSNBC does the Liberal one. But Fox at least attempts to stay fair whereas MSNBC is blatantly Liberal to the core. I get most of my news from Fox and the net because I can’t stomach even the local crap I hear from all the others.

            • And fox’s commentators actually admit that they are biased, while MSNBC’s want you to believe that they are completely unbiased and just report the facts.

              • Wait a minute isnt Fox’s tag “Fair and Balanced”?
                I would genuinely have little problem with Fox if they took that tagline off. At least MSNBC does not have anything like that which is a good reason to not watch them as well.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                With the notable exception of Mr. O’Reilly – his no-spin zone is anything but

            • I would not call the BBC especially government friendly, they have been pounding them relentlessly recently. I am sure government politicians relish the opportunity to be interviewed by Jeremy Paxman, most of the time they end up close to tears. The BBC is ok, they have quite a few reporters out there so they are able to dig up stories.

  3. Vinnster says:

    Another excellent post.

    I wonder if the public will ever catch on. I stopped buying what the MSM was selling in the 70s. After watching the coverage of the Vietnam War then hearing first hand accounts from my friends returning.

    To those too young to know the MSM did the same hit pieces on our soldiers as they do today. To the MSM every soldier was a baby killer and they lost every battle they engaged in.

    Since I personally knew dozens of them and discussed at great length with them what actually happened I came to realize the members of the MSM had an agenda, a consensus of thought that sold progressive ideals to “educate” the unwashed masses with their version of reality. One that hated the basic principles that our Founding Fathers established. And most of all they hate people who are independent and can think for themselves.

    Fox is the only channel that comes close to showing both sides of an issues. Since I generally do not watch religious channels I skip CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC… I can only take so much worshiping the The One.

    • USWeapon says:

      That was funny referring to them as religious channels. They certainly have seemed that way lately. I forget which channel it was recently where the commentator literally referred to Obama as “God”.

    • Our war in Vietnam was lost as soon as Walter Kronkite said that it was.

  4. I rarely watch any type of mainstream Media anymore. I think the all turn the truth to fit their beliefs. Some lie and some just leave out parts of the truth. The shooting was another example of the very crazy people that still live in this country. But that occurs on both sides. The sad thing is that the gossip rags that use to be a joke on the checkouts at your local supermarket are now finding their way into the news. Sad. We have long lost our accurate unbias news reporters many years ago.

    • USWeapon says:

      Unfortunately Ellen I believe that you are right when you say we have lost it a long time ago. What is scary is how many Americans out there take magazines like Newsweek and Us and People and regard them as news sources.

      Hope all is well with you today!

  5. Anyone, and I mean anyone who does not see that the MSM is bias has his or her head positioned where the sun does not shine. It is so blatantly obvious it is sickening.

  6. Morning everyone! I have to say that too many times I’d get a bit in a twist over the MSM’s innacurate and biased reporting. What I’d like to do is find a way to call them out when the do business this way. I would love nothing more than to embarrass one of these jerks in public. I know that Black Flag would say that acknowledging them just gives them more power, but a good punch in the eye will give them a headache as well. Here’s a link to an example of biased (and bad) MSM reporting.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31363631/ns/us_news-environment

    Are they that dumb that they can’t see through the bulldookie, or maybe they are a part of it.

    G!

  7. Bama dad says:

    USW as usual another good job. It is difficult to get honest reporting these days. One has to dig around on the web and cross reference information on what was reported to get the full story. Fox is the closest straight reporting you can get on TV. They do slant toward the conservative side of things but they are fairly honest. Beck is an entertainer but has some common sense ideas that are good. O’Reilly has his on opinion about things but will bring in folks that disagree with him. Just disregard Hannity as he only thinks one way, his way. Check out these two opinion articles from two of our fine news sources.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/08/opinion/main5072617.shtml
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html

  8. So we have what they report,

    “Three—three!—political shootings by right-wing extremists does actually make a trend, mostly because it’s not accidental that the crazies are turning violent now. Right-wing domestic terror, weirdly, spikes when the right-wing media step up the intensity and violence of their rhetoric”

    And what they ignore. One abortion killing requires warnings issued to all abortion clinics that there may be more attacks. One recruiting center killing by a domestic terrorist, and its an isolated incident.

    (CNN) — An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another, authorities said.
    Police identified the suspect as Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe.

    Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad — a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe — faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act,

    And didn’t Obama speak about the abortion killing, which was horrible, but silent on the recruiting killing. Does the “Commander in Chief”, not value the lives of those who serve him? Not newsworthy?

    • LOI, A terrorist attack committed by a Muslim extremist on U.S. soil for the first time since 9/11. Why would he admit that, knowing more will come, and there is nothing he will do about it. Could this also be because he may support the killers motives? If he spoke on this would Americans have gotten angry and went after Muslims in our cities? Our “Commander in Puppet Strings” has no business being where he is at, period!

      G!

    • He’s not trying to secure his place in history with recruiters is he now?

  9. It’s ironic that USW did this piece, because our local newspaper had letters to the editor about this very same thing this morning. They weren’t too happy with the way the media ignored they guy who shot the 2 soldiers, but yet couldn’t say enough about the guy who shot Tiller. Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson didn’t even mention it on their news cast. We only listen to our local news channel to get the news from around here and what’s going on, and to get the weather report, then switch over to Fox. For some unkown reason to me, I can’t understand why the MSM felt that the Tiller shooting was way more important the shooting of those 2 soldiers. Was lives less important?

    • I meant to put their lives, sorry about leaving that out.

    • Judy, As many times as this has occurred with abortion clinics over the years, there is always one thing I can’t understand. Pro-Lifers that kill other people! It’s such a contradiction of that belief, it baffles me!

      G!

      • As a Member of several Pro-Life organizations, I am Impressed by how quickly they all submitted E-mails and press releases denouncing this act. Of course, the MSM rufuses to report this fact, leaving most to believe that these organizations are OK with Murder.

        Just one example, for the record:
        http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release053109.html

        • USWeapon says:

          Pat,

          It was good to see so many of these organizations denounce the act of violence immediately. I do wish that the media would be more honest in reporting it though.

      • G-Man
        I found this article informative,

        In the fourth paragraph of the AP article, I came across this line:

        “But the doctor’s violent death was the latest in a string of shootings and bombings over two decades directed against abortion clinics doctors and staff.”

        After reading that, I decided to look into the statistics of abortion violence with a view toward perhaps creating a visualization about it.

        from: http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/ap-apparently-dislikes-accurately-representing-abortion-violence/

        • USWeapon says:

          Interesting article FrankC. I had no idea that this was the first in so long. I also found it interesting the conversation that was going on below about someone named ShoQ? I assume he pissed you off in some way, lol. Thanks for sharing the article.

        • USW –
          I found @politicalmath via this utube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

          His full page here: http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/the-national-debt-road-trip/

          I’ve been spending WAY too much time on Twitter. Altho simple it’s also complex in use. Used wisely for information & news, it’s extremely compelling, such as right now are some posts from Iran by @Change_for_Iran

          I’m forced to return. there is no way I can get there on foot & no taxi is willing to go there.

          poeple in streets are talking about a fail attempt by IRG to arrest Admiral Shamkhani (Khatami’s def minister) #iranelection 6 minutes ago from web

          http://www.goftaniha.org/ know your enemies (in Farsi) – is about all types are security forces currently attacking people #iranelection 2 minutes ago from web

          From Iran, to David Letterman, to the now un-published Playboy Hate-F%$^ article (I actually read it on playboy’s site before they took it down) (stopped by twitter response) It is about 1/2 to 2 days ahead of the regular news.

    • Truth be told, there was no blaming GWB for it so into the dust bin that story went. Mind you had they been able to tie Sarrah Palin to it in any way, shape or form, I don’t doubt for a second president Obama would be having to purchase air time!

  10. chiefopiner says:

    Blaming conservatives for the actions of these nuts and their recent deadly attacks would be like blaming liberals for some of these action by “ecoterroists.” people want to play the blame game there’s plenty to go around against the liberals as well.

    It’s just stupid.

    2009

    May 18
    Arsonists strike research supplier in Nevada
    An arson fire guts the Reno business office of Scientific Resources International Inc., a supplier of monkeys for research. Damage: $300,000. Animal Liberation Front claims guilt.

    Mar. 7
    Researcher’s car destroyed in California
    A homemade incendiary device is used to destroy the unoccupied vehicle of UCLA neuroscientist David Jentsch. Animal rightists claim guilt in a statement issued through the North American Animal Liberation Press Office.

    2008

    Nov. 20
    Researchers’ cars destroyed in California
    Two vehicles are torched by terrorists targeting Goran Lacan, a researcher who uses animals at UCLA. But the attackers got the address wrong. ALF claims guilt.

    Oct. 17
    Mink farm raid in Oregon
    Trespassers open 1,000 pens at Ylipetto’s Fur Farm in Astoria. About half the mink stay in the pens, and most that leave are recovered, but there are at least 35 casualties, mostly victims of dogs.

    Aug. 2
    UCSC staffers attacked with firebombs
    A firebomb goes off at 5:45 a.m., destroying a car belonging to a University of California Santa Cruz scientist. Four minutes later, another firebomb goes off at the home of Prof. David Feldheim, forcing evacuation of his family via ladder from the 2nd floor.

    June 3
    Van torched at UCLA
    An empty van belonging to the University of California at Los Angeles and used to transport faculty members is destroyed by fire. ALF claims guilt.

    Mar. 3
    Fires gut model homes
    Five multi-million-dollar model homes are torched in the Seattle, Washington suburb of Bear Creek. ELF grafitti found.

    Feb. 24
    Invasion attempt at researcher’s home
    Six masked people attempt to enter by force the home of a biomedical researcher at UC Santa Cruz. The researcher’s family, including two children, 2 and 8 years old, are home at the time.

    Feb. 4
    Fire set at scientist’s house
    An incendiary device is ignited on the porch of UCLA professor Edythe London’s house in Westside, Los Angeles. London conducts animal research. On Oct. 20, 2007, the same house was flooded with a garden hose.

    2007

    Oct. 20
    Researcher’s home flooded
    A garden hose is used to flood the house in Westside, Los Angeles of UCLA Prof. Edythe London who uses monkeys to research nicotine addiction. ALF claims guilt. Estimated damage: $20,000 to $40,000.

    Aug. 13
    Mink farm raid in Massachusetts
    500 mink are released at Carmel Fur Farm in Hinsdale. Many are killed on a nearby highway. Breeding records lost. Estimated damage: $75,000 to $100,000.

    June 5
    Mink farm attacked in Pennsylvania, dogs killed
    The DeMatteis farm in Boyers is attacked at night. All 2,800 mink are released and abandoned. Most are recovered but 500 die. Two pet dogs killed. Damage: $40-50,000.

    March
    Firebombs beneath SUVs in Colorado
    During a four-day period, firebombs are placed beneath seven SUVs in upscale neighborhoods of Denver. Grant Barnes is charged.

    2006

    Dec. 18
    Bird farm raided in New Jersey
    About 2,500 birds are released from Griggstown Quail Farm in Somerset County. All are believed to have died in traffic and from cold. ALF claims guilt. Damage: $80,000.

    June 30
    Attempted firebombing of UCLA professor
    UCLA professor Lynn Fairbanks targeted. Bomb left at neighbor’s house by mistake, failed to ignite. Arson investigators say that if the device had functioned properly, escape would have been difficult to impossible for the 70-year-old neighbor. ALF claims guilt.

    Apr. 29
    Pet ferret farm attacked
    USA: Pet ferrets are released, breeding records destroyed in Howard Lake, MN, in a case of mistaken identity for mink. ALF claims guilt.

    January 17
    Luxury house hit by arson
    USA: A 9,600-square-foot house on Camano Island, Washington burns to the ground. Investigators find message claiming ELF guilt. Damage: $2 million.

    2005

    November 20
    Housing development torched
    USA: Four unoccupied townhouses are set alight at a new development in Hager’s Crossing subdivision, Hagerstown, Maryland. One unit is destroyed. ELF claims guilt in e-mail to Associated Press. Damage: $225,000.

    October 3
    Construction equipment vandalized in Montana
    USA: Damage is discovered to construction equipment at the new Kenyon Noble Lumber & Hardware store in Bozeman. “ELF” is spray-painted. Damage: $3,000.

    September 11
    Landfill equipment vandalized in Maine
    USA: A dozen large vehicles have their ignitions ripped out or superglue poured into them, tires slashed, fuel tanks tampered with, at West Old Town Landfill. “ELF” spray-painted on buildings. Damage: $30,000.

    May 26
    Proposed monkey housing vandalized in Pennsylvania
    USA: Peonyland nursery, in Richland Township, Bucks County, has 1,000 plants destroyed (including some rare breeds), paint stripper poured on two vehicles, and ALF graffiti spray-painted on buildings. The nursery had bid to provide housing for monkeys destined for research laboratories. ALF claims guilt. Damage: tens of thousands of dollars.

    April 13
    Homes firebombed in Washington
    USA: Arsonists burn one house under construction, attempt another, in Sammamish, east of Seattle. Outside second house is banner reading “Where are all the trees? Burn, rapists, burn,” and signed ELF. Damage: $300,000.

    April 1
    Illinois fox farm raided
    USA: The pens of 58 pregnant or nursing female foxes are opened at a farm in Bluffs. ALl the animals are recovered. ALF claims guilt. (Related article)

    March
    North Dakota construction site torched
    USA: A construction site in Moorhead is set alight. James Tucker is sentenced to 43 months on Oct. 18, 2005. At sentencing, he thanks the judge on behalf of ELF.

    February 7
    Arsonists strike California apartment complex
    USA: Seven arson fires are set at a new apartment complex, Pinewoods Apartment Homes, in Sutter Creek, Amador County. Two apartment units extensively damaged. “We Will Win – ELF” is spray-painted at the scene. Damage: $50,000.

    February 6
    McDonald’s vandalized in California
    USA: Windows are smashed and slogans – McMurder Killers” and “ALF” – are painted at McDonald’s in Crenshaw Boulevard, Torrance.

    January 12
    Another California construction site targeted
    USA: Five incendiary devices with timers are found inside an Auburn, Placer County office building under construction. The devices could have destroyed the entire complex. FBI connects incident to December 27 attempted arson. ELF claims guilt. Ryan Lewis convicted, October 2005.

    • What a surprise…”trends of violence” are reported with a slanted view…

    • USWeapon says:

      Excellent point Chief. And quite a list you found there! It is amazing to me that the left has the audacity to call the right violent. It seems that when the right has a protest it goes off smoothly without violence. In contrast the left’s protests end with assaulted cops, burned cars, etc. As I recall the left even tried to throw acid on the Republican delegates when they showed up for the Republican convention.

  11. So many examples, and yet, so many are in denial about it. I have a very left leaning friend and we discussed this issue about a year ago.

    She was adamant that the MSM was telling it the way it is, so I asked her if she agreed, that she and I are were on opposite sides of the spectrum, politically. Of course she said “yes”. So, I said, you have no problem with how you hear things from the media so you agree with them, right? Of course she said, “yes”. Touche!

    I still don’t think she got it, but it did at least give her pause. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people out there like her.

    • USWeapon says:

      EXCELLENT way of handling that Kathy. You back-doored her into admitting the bias! I love it.

  12. Black Flag says:

    1) First rule of information – multiple sources

    All MSM sources are biased – a turn of a word here or there puts a significant slant on anything. Thus, multiple sources tend to cancel each other out – with the result being more or less neutral.

    2) Use business/economic news sites.

    Money matters – and the guys whose dollar depends on what is happening gets his news as straight and true as possible. They tend to make popular those information sources that do exactly that – it made Bloomberg a billionaire, for example.

    Remember, Main Stream Media is made to entertain, it’s unreasonable to demand from it anything else. Worry not what the ‘masses’ think or believe.

    Worry about what you think and believe.

    • USWeapon says:

      Both rules are good ones. Economic sites tend to give far more accurate information, especially in terms of the economy. They are more worried about it being messed up than pushing an agenda. After all a messed up economy will kill them regardless of who is in charge. Unless of course they are an economic site related to the possibility of getting a bailout of some form.

  13. Black Flag says:

    Today, there has been a flood of warnings along the lines I’ve mentioned in the past – the disastrous action of the Fed Government overruling bond holders in the Chrysler deal.

    A short example:

    Some turnaround specialists are concerned the government-guided bankruptcy reorganizations of Chrysler and GM could make it harder for companies to obtain capital. In these cases, the companies’ labor union, the United Auto Workers, received more favorable treatment than the companies’ secured creditors. That violates well-established bankruptcy law principles, said Peter Kaufman, president of Gordian Group LLC’s restructuring practice in New York. The U.S. is the most welcoming place in the world for capital, particularly for loans, he said, because “everyone knows what their downside is.”

    “Now that has all been stood on its ear,” he said. “At a time when the country needs capital providers more than ever, you’re going to find institutions with their hands in their pockets, or they’re going to be charging a lot more,” Kaufman said.

    Half of the turnaround experts surveyed by the Turnaround Management Association thought the government’s decision to elevate unsecured creditors over secured creditors in the Chrysler bankruptcy will make secured loans more expensive. More than one-third thought it would make lenders less inclined to make these loans. An online survey conducted by the American Bankruptcy Institute found that 76 percent of respondents “disagreed strongly” with the Obama administration’s engineering of the Chrysler bankruptcy.

    Kaufman contends capital providers will be especially leery of situations where there are unions and a conceivable government policy interest.

    The unintended consequences will wreck havoc in the American financial environment. Actions like this have turned the USA into a banana republic.

    This does not bode well.

    And the response of the market? The dollar went up vs. international currencies… there is no market sense – do not trust any pundits word – they do not know what they are doing.

    • Are those “unintentional consequences” actually unintentional? Call me what you like, but I believe that they are garnering the exact consequences they want.

    • BF, If the pundits don’t know what they are doing, who the heck does? What knid of havoc do you foresee coming?

      G!

      • Black Flag says:

        The bond holders gave their money to Chrysler – who was in trouble – based on the guarantee of assets. They would not have done so, unless those assets were directly and irrevocably pledged against the loan.

        Government comes in, and moves unionized employees to the front of the line.

        Some say “Well, this was a special case” – but as I’ve noted before, if one exception is allowed, then any exception will be allowed.

        Access to capital in the USA just got incredibly more expensive for everyone.

        Further, no one will trust this banana republic with their money – especially any industry near or at the grips of government and unions.

        This will add years, if not decades, to any substantial recovery in the USA.

      • G, it is all about control with the current administration…I must be getting cynical in my old age, but if the current POTUS said the sky is blue, I would have to research it to make sure he was right.

      • Black Flag says:

        “Who the heck does?”….

        You do!.

        The era of the “professional financier” is over. They are worse than blind.

        Take control of your own money. You’re smarter than you believe you are!

        • BF, do you have any recommendations for reading on money/financial matters? This is an area I’ve been wanting to be more educated on lately.

          • Black Flag says:

            All the good ones cost money – ironically, it costs money to get your information raw. What this represents is that they untie themselves from most advertisers – allowing themselves more reporting freedom.

            For free – Bloomberg.com – for general news items – short, sweet, to the point.

            FEE.org (Foundation for Economic Education) – lots of good stuff – but being a ‘free market’ support will tend to ‘liberal’ bash a tiny bit.

            Economist.com – The free side has good insight – tends to be more ‘political’ then bloomberg.

            Stratfor.com – again, a paid site with a reasonable ‘free’ section. Great strategic insight on world events – very non-partisan – not a judge of policy, but offers the consequences of particular policies.

    • USWeapon says:

      Excellent point BF. As always it is the unintended consequences that might be the thing that really bites people in the butt.

  14. Black Flag says:

    A note of the obvious:

    Oh-oh! Politicians share personality traits with serial killers: Study

    Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality traits common to a couple of professions.

    Kouri, who’s a vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.

    These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.

    But — and here’s the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion — these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)

    Yup. Violent homicide aside, our elected officials often show many of the exact same character traits as criminal nutjobs, who run from police but not for office.

    Kouri notes that these criminals are psychologically capable of committing their dirty deeds free of any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse.

    “This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want,” he writes. “Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders.”

    Good grief! And we not only voted for these people, we’re paying their salaries and entrusting them to spend our national treasure in wise ways.

    We don’t know Kouri that well. He may be trying to manipulate all of us with his glib provocative pronouncements. On the other hand,…..

    He adds:

    “While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals,” Kouri notes, “it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government.”

    — Andrew Malcolm

    • Most if not all politicians are bloodsuckers. They are committing homicide, simply one of a different type.

  15. It’s not possible for people to be unbiased. We all are, whether we realize it or not. Probably that’s not all bad. Anyway, the modern media has the distinction of forwarding an agenda as well as being biased, which causes them to actually supress news, lie about events and people, act as the judge and jury over individuals and do their level best to influence attitudes and outcomes in America. They are “in bed” with the democrats because the democrats are the party most likely to forward the media agenda as well.

    Fox news channel, is not without its own agenda, but their straight forward reporting of the news is without slant, though they’re just reporting AP news releases I think. The commentary shows are plainly conservative, but I don’t think they lie and pretend to be unbiased like the other news networks.

    I haven’t actually watched TV at all in over four years, but I listen to the radio and read news from all over on the internet and this is what I hear and see.

    • USWeapon says:

      Michelle,

      I agree that it is not possible to be unbiased. However, it is possible to present an unbiased version of the news. I don’t ask that the media not be liberal, only that they stop furthering the agenda and disguising it as news.

      • How is it impossible to be unbiased but then it is possible to show unbiased news? That does not make much sense to me. How do biased corporations, writers newscasters present unbiased news, I am genuinely curious?
        Everyone has an agenda, thats why people should scour whatever sources they have and make their own minds up, whatever story I look at I read at least 3 sources and usually more.

  16. Black Flag says:

    From the “What no one is telling you” file of Black Flag:

    At the end of 2009, there was just shy of $400 Billion of unclosed contracts on commodities exchanges for Gold.

    At $700 an oz., that means there was 580 million oz. gold awaiting delivery, or 16,200 tonnes.

    The entire USA holdings of gold (declared, but not verified) is 8,000 tonnes. The entire world’s gold in central banks is under 30,000 tonnes.

    Half of the entire gold held for financial reserve sat, undelivered, in commodities exchange contracts.

    The artificial low price for gold is directly due to the volume of contracts that are traded without delivery demand.

    As soon as delivery demand happens, (and it will), gold will explode in price.

    The last couple of weeks of gold price has shown repeated runs at $1,000 only to have some massive sell-off driving the price down – and only to have a repeat run-up….

    Today’s graph demonstrates an example;

    http://www.24hgold.com/english/home.aspx

    The $1,000 is important – if gold cross that line, it will mean the Central Bankers are losing control…..

    • Black Flag says:

      “..end of 2009..” 😉 Time warp….

      “..end of 2008..</b"

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      I never fully understood the trading of comodity contracts when one has no intent on ever accepting physical delivery of the commodity in question. I know that this is done with oil and gold (and other commodities) all the time and is mainly a form of price manipulation, but I also know that these contracts have expiration dates, and I am not fully aware of what happens when the contract hits the expiration date. Is the holder of the contract obligated to take delivery at that time? If delivery is not taken at that time, what happens to that contract and the amount of gold (or other commodity) that it represents?

      • Black Flag says:

        That is the theory – but the Exchanges have a recent rule that you must register as a commodity user capable of accepting delivery.

        So, if you ‘buy’ a oil contract and failed to close it out (that is ‘sell’), the Exchange will sell it for you at the spot price. You have no fear of receiving 1,000 barrels of oil at your house.

        Those open contracts on gold would be closed by sale – HOWEVER, the size of the outstanding market is overwhelming. That means that people are putting out for sale gold oz. in amounts equal to all the financial gold in the world.

        That is staggering.

        • BF, It almost feels like the beginning of a future disaster movie. Except far different than any disaster movie ever made. Wonder what the next act will be?

          • Black Flag says:

            I, too, feel like its a “Chainsaw Massacre Movie” too.

          • I’m awaiting the government’s focus to fall upon the US patent office. The leverage contained therein is far beyond what most can even imagine.

            • USWeapon says:

              Excellent point Alan. I doubt many would have thought of that. I sure hadn’t. Quite observant of you.

    • Black Flag says:

      From STRATFOR

      Graphic for Geopolitical Intelligence Report

      By George Friedman

      * The Iranian Presidential Elections

      In 1979, when we were still young and starry-eyed, a revolution took place in Iran. When I asked experts what would happen, they divided into two camps.

      The first group of Iran experts argued that the Shah of Iran would certainly survive, that the unrest was simply a cyclical event readily manageable by his security, and that the Iranian people were united behind the Iranian monarch’s modernization program. These experts developed this view by talking to the same Iranian officials and businessmen they had been talking to for years — Iranians who had grown wealthy and powerful under the shah and who spoke English, since Iran experts frequently didn’t speak Farsi all that well.

      The second group of Iran experts regarded the shah as a repressive brute, and saw the revolution as aimed at liberalizing the country. Their sources were the professionals and academics who supported the uprising — Iranians who knew what former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini believed, but didn’t think he had much popular support. They thought the revolution would result in an increase in human rights and liberty. The experts in this group spoke even less Farsi than the those in the first group.
      Misreading Sentiment in Iran

      Limited to information on Iran from English-speaking opponents of the regime, both groups of Iran experts got a very misleading vision of where the revolution was heading — because the Iranian revolution was not brought about by the people who spoke English. It was made by merchants in city bazaars, by rural peasants, by the clergy — people Americans didn’t speak to because they couldn’t. This demographic was unsure of the virtues of modernization and not at all clear on the virtues of liberalism. From the time they were born, its members knew the virtue of Islam, and that the Iranian state must be an Islamic state.

      Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization — a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook “iPod liberalism,” the idea that anyone who listens to rock ‘n’ roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran — a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.

      There are undoubtedly people who want to liberalize the Iranian regime. They are to be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to the touring journalists, diplomats and intelligence people who pass through. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are the ones willing to speak to Westerners. And these people give Westerners a wildly distorted view of Iran. They can create the impression that a fantastic liberalization is at hand — but not when you realize that iPod-owning Anglophones are not exactly the majority in Iran.

      Last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote. Supporters of his opponent, both inside and outside Iran, were stunned. A poll revealed that former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was beating Ahmadinejad. It is, of course, interesting to meditate on how you could conduct a poll in a country where phones are not universal, and making a call once you have found a phone can be a trial. A poll therefore would probably reach people who had phones and lived in Tehran and other urban areas. Among those, Mousavi probably did win. But outside Tehran, and beyond persons easy to poll, the numbers turned out quite different.

      Some still charge that Ahmadinejad cheated. That is certainly a possibility, but it is difficult to see how he could have stolen the election by such a large margin. Doing so would have required the involvement of an incredible number of people, and would have risked creating numbers that quite plainly did not jibe with sentiment in each precinct. Widespread fraud would mean that Ahmadinejad manufactured numbers in Tehran without any regard for the vote. But he has many powerful enemies who would quickly have spotted this and would have called him on it. Mousavi still insists he was robbed, and we must remain open to the possibility that he was, although it is hard to see the mechanics of this.
      Ahmadinejad’s Popularity

      It also misses a crucial point: Ahmadinejad enjoys widespread popularity. He doesn’t speak to the issues that matter to the urban professionals, namely, the economy and liberalization. But Ahmadinejad speaks to three fundamental issues that accord with the rest of the country.

      First, Ahmadinejad speaks of piety. Among vast swathes of Iranian society, the willingness to speak unaffectedly about religion is crucial. Though it may be difficult for Americans and Europeans to believe, there are people in the world to whom economic progress is not of the essence; people who want to maintain their communities as they are and live the way their grandparents lived. These are people who see modernization — whether from the shah or Mousavi — as unattractive. They forgive Ahmadinejad his economic failures.

      Second, Ahmadinejad speaks of corruption. There is a sense in the countryside that the ayatollahs — who enjoy enormous wealth and power, and often have lifestyles that reflect this — have corrupted the Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad is disliked by many of the religious elite precisely because he has systematically raised the corruption issue, which resonates in the countryside.

      Third, Ahmadinejad is a spokesman for Iranian national security, a tremendously popular stance. It must always be remembered that Iran fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s that lasted eight years, cost untold lives and suffering, and effectively ended in its defeat. Iranians, particularly the poor, experienced this war on an intimate level. They fought in the war, and lost husbands and sons in it. As in other countries, memories of a lost war don’t necessarily delegitimize the regime. Rather, they can generate hopes for a resurgent Iran, thus validating the sacrifices made in that war — something Ahmadinejad taps into. By arguing that Iran should not back down but become a major power, he speaks to the veterans and their families, who want something positive to emerge from all their sacrifices in the war.

      Perhaps the greatest factor in Ahmadinejad’s favor is that Mousavi spoke for the better districts of Tehran — something akin to running a U.S. presidential election as a spokesman for Georgetown and the Lower East Side. Such a base will get you hammered, and Mousavi got hammered. Fraud or not, Ahmadinejad won and he won significantly. That he won is not the mystery; the mystery is why others thought he wouldn’t win.

      For a time on Friday, it seemed that Mousavi might be able to call for an uprising in Tehran. But the moment passed when Ahmadinejad’s security forces on motorcycles intervened. And that leaves the West with its worst-case scenario: a democratically elected anti-liberal.

      Western democracies assume that publics will elect liberals who will protect their rights. In reality, it’s a more complicated world. Hitler is the classic example of someone who came to power constitutionally, and then preceded to gut the constitution. Similarly, Ahmadinejad’s victory is a triumph of both democracy and repression.
      The Road Ahead: More of the Same

      The question now is what will happen next. Internally, we can expect Ahmadinejad to consolidate his position under the cover of anti-corruption. He wants to clean up the ayatollahs, many of whom are his enemies. He will need the support of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This election has made Ahmadinejad a powerful president, perhaps the most powerful in Iran since the revolution. Ahmadinejad does not want to challenge Khamenei, and we suspect that Khamenei will not want to challenge Ahmadinejad. A forced marriage is emerging, one which may place many other religious leaders in a difficult position.

      Certainly, hopes that a new political leadership would cut back on Iran’s nuclear program have been dashed. The champion of that program has won, in part because he championed the program. We still see Iran as far from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon, but certainly the Obama administration’s hopes that Ahmadinejad would either be replaced — or at least weakened and forced to be more conciliatory — have been crushed. Interestingly, Ahmadinejad sent congratulations to U.S. President Barack Obama on his inauguration. We would expect Obama to reciprocate under his opening policy, which U.S. Vice President Joe Biden appears to have affirmed, assuming he was speaking for Obama. Once the vote fraud issue settles, we will have a better idea of whether Obama’s policies will continue. (We expect they will.)

      What we have now are two presidents in a politically secure position, something that normally forms a basis for negotiations. The problem is that it is not clear what the Iranians are prepared to negotiate on, nor is it clear what the Americans are prepared to give the Iranians to induce them to negotiate. Iran wants greater influence in Iraq and its role as a regional leader acknowledged, something the United States doesn’t want to give them. The United States wants an end to the Iranian nuclear program, which Iran doesn’t want to give.

      On the surface, this would seem to open the door for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Former U.S. President George W. Bush did not — and Obama does not — have any appetite for such an attack. Both presidents blocked the Israelis from attacking, assuming the Israelis ever actually wanted to attack.

      For the moment, the election appears to have frozen the status quo in place. Neither the United States nor Iran seem prepared to move significantly, and there are no third parties that want to get involved in the issue beyond the occasional European diplomatic mission or Russian threat to sell something to Iran. In the end, this shows what we have long known: This game is locked in place, and goes on.

      • Interesting, and I agree the US has caused many of its problems with Iran. That has no bearing on MSM’s bias on what and how they report.
        It would be fair and accurate to point out how we screwed up putting
        the Shaw in power, but that does not get mentioned during prime time.

      • What an incredibly well done think piece. Sums up what I have thought for years. It was, I believe possible for the Shah to hang on but the cost in blood was more than the west(read US) was ready to tolerate. I actually aleways got a kick out of the Iranian students I knew here in the ’70’s they assured me that the Aytollah was just a temporary phenomena and as soon as they and theirs took power, real democratic reform would rush in , meld with the economic progress the shah had brought about and yet another paradise on earth would have arrived. I assume most of those students eventually wound up before a firing squad if they did not recant quickly enough.

        Back in High School, we were taught the difference between Totalitarian and Authoritarian. Many regimes start out Totalitarian but eventually liberalize and ultimately become merely authoritarian nor even democratic. Franco and Pinochet’s regimes seem to fall into that category. Beloved leader Jr. in Korea has not. Tito did in Yugoslavia but never set up a succession the way that Franco did.

        In any event, Once we started fooling around with the inetrnal politics of Iran in the ’50’s we “bought” the place. Cold war or no cold war, I am not particularly sure it was worth it.

        Thanks Flag for another interesting diversion from clearing off my desk.

  17. Birdman says:

    The main stream media is liberal and clearly pushes that agenda. I have not watched or read the MSM for over 10 years. Rush now calls the MSM the state run media.

    Here is a link to Newsbusters that expose liberal media bias: http://newsbusters.org/

    The MSM is painting these nut cases as right wing extremists to silence people like Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc. I’m sure they will use it to push for more censorship of radio through the fairness doctrine. The MSM has been successful in their liberal agenda because a large portion of the population believes them and they are convinced that conservatives are all nut cases. However, there is a new poll out that shows that 40% of the population regard themselves as conservative and we are not nut cases.

  18. Ray Hawkins says:

    Evening everyone – back for a short spell here – I’ll offer simply that what may be latched onto were that Von Brunn may have had some ‘threads’ of far far far right wingnut-ism in him and that was grabbed and ran as a right wing/conservative nut job story (in lieu of him killing in the name of trees, or lesbians, or some turtle somewhere). I think the guy was simply nuts – and most everyone scrambled for a story or an angle. Even if Von Brunn was caught masturbating to an Ann Coulter tome I’m still not willing to dump a mess like him into the lap of Rush and gang. I will say that fiery rhetoric does have have intended and unintended consequences.

    I will differ on Mr. O’Reilly somewhat – an entire book was written on his liberal abuse of facts (a book that references all the points/places where his story changes) – does he lie all the time? No – I doubt it. But the no spin zone is anything but. What do you expect from someone who writes a “A heaping pile of whatever….”

    • USWeapon says:

      Good to see you Ray. I imagine that you aren’t getting much sleep these days! I hope all is going well for you, mom, and the little one.

      I understand your stance on O’Reilly. I find him to be generally honest, although I am sure there are plenty of stretches and lies told as well. I have seen enough to not take anyone at their word, especially anyone on a news channel who calls themselves commentators and not journalist. To me that is like saying “I don’t have to tell the whole truth”.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Sleep is just not in the cards for me much these days. I should amend what I offered about O’Reilly to state that when he does certain pieces it appears he will generally use facts and then interpret from them. When he is engaged on points made is when fact & opinion get very gray for him.

  19. Twitter info – If you happen to be interested.

    One of the people I follow is @jaketapper (ABC white house cooresp) He uses / posts regularly during the day, and then when he publishes to the web his blog, he posts a twitter it. He just posted this which will not only show you that technique but his blog is about his ‘twitter’ interview with McCain.

    But within minutes, we know about it (as I was reading this site) and can read it!

    An Impromptu Twitterview with Sen. John McCain This Morning
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/an-impromptu-twitterview-with-sen-john-mccain-this-morning.html

    and the tweet was: if u missed the impromptu twitterview with @senjohnmccain here’s the back and forth > http://bit.ly/cHE4f

    Neat !!

  20. Announced that ABC news will be holding an infomercial and broadcasting from the WhiteHouse on BO’s health care plans. ABC will hold complete editorial authority on who is there, what can be asked.

    The RNC has asked that this hour of primetime TV be paid for by the DNC, as it appears it is nothing more than a commercial for BO – this will not be an open discussion at all.

    Truly a sad state when a major network is just a government mouthpiece.

%d bloggers like this: