Guest Commentary: Glenn Beck is a LIAR!

Tonight’s Guest Commentary is one that I am interested to hear the discussion around. Over the course of the last couple of months, we have seen several folks use Politifact as kind of the “unbiased truth” around the statements made by folks on the political stage. Just the other night, I was presented with Politifact’s evaluation of Sarah Palin’s speech to the Tea Party Convention. I have read over there enough that I can see that there is a bias to what they check and what they don’t, as well as the way they present it. That is fine, but I do have to take their evaluations with a grain of salt because of it, much like those who disagree with me take my evaluations with a grain of salt. The sad thing is that there isn’t a BETTER place to go for an unbiased evaluation of what folks on both sides of the aisle are saying. If such a place existed, I imagine it would be one of the most visited sites around. I also imagine that there would be a lot of “Pants on Fire” ratings on both sides of the aisle. Because an unbiased evaluation would show that about 99% of what comes out of Washington DC is bullshit… I’m just sayin.

GLENN BECK IS A BIG, FAT, LIAR!!!
by Life of Illusion

Has Glenn Beck ever told a lie? Absolutely, he is not Jesus, therefore not perfect. What I found most interesting to begin with, although they have two categories of TRUE ratings at Politifact (a 2009 Pulitzer Prize winner), there were zero ratings of “True” for Beck. I find that hard to believe. Beck is a blowhard, very fond of his own voice. As much as he talks, its just not possible that he somehow, inadvertently, at least once told the truth (USWeapon adds in here that he was telling the truth about ACORN and Van Jones, why aren’t those truths listed).

Here’s what they have to say about Beck  🙂

  • True:  0(0)
  • Mostly True:  0(0)
  • Half True:  1(1)
  • Barely True:  2(2)
  • False:  5(5)
  • Pants on Fire:  2(2)

Glenn Beck is the host of “The Glenn Beck Program,” a nationally-syndicated talk-radio show; as well as a self-titled television show on the Fox News Channel.

Recent statements involving Glenn Beck

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

“In the health care bill, we’re now offering insurance for dogs.” Glenn Beck

Pants on Fire! (OK, this one I’m not even going to check on, kinda a bulldookey issue)

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” Glenn Beck

Pants on Fire! Holdren never endorsed these ideas (This one I’m not checking, just memory, the issue is he co-wrote a book that did state such measures might be necessary, not necessarily here, but in third world countries. The question should be if that was an ideal Holdren came up with or agreed with, and if he still thinks that is still a legitimate issue today, and a legitimate way to deal with that problem. Depending on how he answers, should he be in that position?)(USWeapon confirms, it was in the book, but was discussed as possible solutions, not necessarily “endorsed” by Holdren in the book. There is still question as to who came up with it and whether he does endorse it. I wrote about Holdren and other radical appointments HERE )

LIES

Labor union president Andy Stern is “the most frequent visitor” at the White House. Glenn Beck

False (OK, I agree, this is a lie, but is that really the point? The most transparent administration yada, yada, was keeping secrete how many visits this union boss made. Is big labor and big business having this much influence over the president not newsworthy?)

Less than 10 percent of Obama’s Cabinet appointees “have any experience in the private sector.” Glenn Beck

Most of them do, to varying degrees False (I wonder if this is worth the effort to research? Varying degrees indeed)

“Mitt Romney … gave you government health care that is now bankrupting the state” of Massachusetts. Glenn Beck

It’s the economy, actually False (It’s the economy? That sounds like an opinion, not a fact. But does that mean government run health care is only doable in prosperous economic times? Doesn’t make a strong case for doing this nationally) A questionable assertion based on questionable data

Forty-five percent of doctors “say they’ll quit” if health care reform passes. Glenn Beck

False. A questionable assertion based on questionable data (A questionable assertion based on questionable data, hell yes, so is almost every assertion on this health care bill. Deficit neutral for ten years only if you pre-pay for several years before you can use any benefits, average costs won’t increase, etc. How about questioning the wild claims from both sides?)

“Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We’re the only country in the world that has it.”

FALSE. Brazil, Canada, Guatamala, Romania…We could go on. (no doubt you could, I wonder what the point he was trying to make?? Anchor babies and open immigration maybe? Is there a point where a country can and should set some limits on who and how many immigrants can enter, and what benefits they automatically receive? Would it be OK for China to empty their prisons and deport all their criminals to the US? A one way ticket would surely be cheaper than feeding and housing them for life.)

Barely True

“You don’t know if this (the H1N1 vaccine) is gonna cause neurological damage like it did in the 1970s.”

Barely True (was the H1N1 not hyped by the media and government? How well was it tested? So Beck says something “barely true”. How many who received the H1N1 vaccine suffered an injury? Most especially a neurological one? Not something you want to report?)

Van Jones “is an avowed, self-avowed radical revolutionary communist.”

Half True “Was,” not “is” (sorry, I never saw where he retracted being a radical or communists. And even if he did make such a retraction, I do not think a former radical has any place in the White House, much less one with communist leanings.)

Van Jones signed a petition indicating he “thinks the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Center and covered it up.”

Half True (And this is what gets him fired? Not being a radical communists? Is there no news story on how these people get “vetted”?)

Recent statements involving Joe Scarborough

President Obama has never received a paycheck from a profitmaking business in his entire life. Joe Scarborough

False. Do they pay Joe to make claims like this? (Are you kidding, that’s all you have an issue with? His co-host Mika, claimed FOX Network did not broadcast Obamas health care speech. They have a news, a business, and a regular channel, and broadcast him on two out of three. But if it is targeted at conservatives, its not worth checking.)

Nancy Pelosi’s file: Democrat, Speaker of the House.

  • True:  1(1)
  • Mostly True:  0(0)
  • Half True:  1(1)
  • Barely True:  1(1)
  • False:  2(2)
  • Pants on Fire:  0(0)

About 750,000 people die in China each year from auto emissions. Nancy Pelosi

Barely True Her numbers don’t add up

“We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” Nancy Pelosi

False CIA documents and Pelosi at odds

“The Capitol was built by slaves.” Nancy Pelosi

True The legend is right

Bush’s tax cuts for high earners “have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit.” Nancy Pelosi

False Tax math doesn’t compute

So Beck has made at least seven outright lies, and Pelosi has only made two? Her recent statement about this being the most open congress is history is not questionable? Its common and normal for one party to meet behind closed doors to make deals on legislation that will affect 1/6th of our economy?

It is also interesting is how many reports they have on Sara Palin compared with Pelosi. The third most powerful member of our government gets half the coverage that a former VP candidate merits.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/sarah-palin/statements/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view.

In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored.

Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

According to scholar Richard Alan Nelson’s (2003) study Tracking Propaganda to the Source: Tools for Analyzing Media Bias[1], media effects findings suggest that when bias occurs it stems from a combination of ten factors:

1. The media are neither objective nor completely honest in their portrayal of important issues.

2. Framing devices are employed in stories by featuring some angles and downplaying others.

3. The news is a product not only of deliberate manipulation, but of the ideological and economic conditions under which the media operate.

4. While appearing independent, the news media are institutions that are controlled or heavily influenced by government and business interests experienced with manufacturing of consent/consensus.

5. Reporters’ sources frequently dominate the flow of information as a way of furthering their own overt and hidden agendas. In particular, the heavy reliance on political officials and other-government related experts occurs through a preferential sourcing selection process which excludes dissident voices.

6. Journalists widely accept the faulty premise that the government’s collective intentions are benevolent, despite occasional mistakes.

7. The regular use of the word “we” by journalists in referring to their government’s actions implies nationalistic complicity with those policies.

8. There is an absence of historical context and contemporary comparisons in reportage which would make news more meaningful.

9. The failure to provide follow up assessment is further evidence of a pack journalism mentality that at the conclusion of a “feeding frenzy” wants to move on to other stories.

10. Citizens must avoid self-censorship by reading divergent sources and maintaining a critical perspective on the media in order to make informed choices and participate effectively in the public policy process.

It seems to me the media is very quick to react when a conservative makes any statements against the liberal agenda. Beck is a legitimate target, but a little perspective, he is a commentator. Why does the Pulitzer winner (Politifact) not have ANY fact checks on the networks? Has Katie Couric never made a false statement? Diane Sawyer did a 20/20 segment on using guns for self defense, where she concluded it was highly unlikely anyone would be able to defend themselves. A very slick set-up, a classroom where the “test subjects” all sit in the same seat, and are shot every time, almost like the shooter knew where they were. Of course, no discussion if the shooting had started in another room, allowing a few seconds to prepare (Virgina Tech). And her closing, that there were no credible studies on defensive gun usage to quote. Funny, they didn’t allow John Lott or the NRA to comment.

Also funny, these supposed “fact checkers” are very selective of which facts they check. They have climategate checks, but no reference to hiding the decline. So to promote their agenda, its Ok to erase the Medieval Warm Period. The fact is, with today’s liberal media, a liberal scientist or president doesn’t have to worry about speaking the truth, the sheeple will believe what Katie tells them to.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Truth Seeker says:

    The biggest question is how do people know what to believe anymore? We get hit with mountains of information everyday from all angles. We are going to have to start hooking people up to lie detectors and start banning people that outright lie from all news media. And why in the world are they checking Beck a commentator and not everybody else? What kind of double standard is that? Politifact has just moved into my “selective journalism” category.

    • TS,

      And that is the issue that we face today. There is a world of information at our fingertips and the unfortunate truth is that we must struggle to figure out what is honest and what is not. While we may feel this is new it isn’t. The people lying to us have always lied to us. We just have ways to see through it and get information that refutes their claims. We used to have to just trust the media or the politicians. Now we have the ability to research and find truth. So while the mass of information has become somewhat abundant and overbearing, I will take it over having no resources as was the case in the past. The other issue is that while the sheer number of information points has increased, so has the number of unreliable ones. As a result of the way out there stuff on the net, the mainstream media folks and politicians have concluded that they can be just as dishonest or outrageous.

      We face a world of information, but its better than none. Politifact was already on my suspect list after visiting there a few times. This hopefully just points out their bias to those that weren’t paying attention to them before.

      USW

    • Truthseeker:

      I would like to comment on your comment regarding global warming.

      I caution against the view that “man can’t change climate” as an argument.

      Most of the science I have reviewed that opposes the CURRENT Man Caused warming and the predictions also conclude that there could be some minor effect now and it is entirely possible to affect our climate in the long term.

      Their point is that the magnitude of our impact would have to be far greater than it has been to date, to see those changes happen.

      Best Wishes
      JAC

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        When you think about the Second World War, its scope and breath, the cities bombed, the fires started, the two nukes and there was no noticeable change in climate.

        A few years ago I talked to a mariner friend who had graduated from the Merchant Marine Academy. I asked him what efforts to his knowledge were made to clean up the oil spills from sunken tankers in the war. Many of these were on our Atlantic Coast. His answer, none. Nature took care of them.

        So, when I think the enviro-religion out there is hubris to the max. I can’t really come around to any other view.

        • SK

          The effects we have had since then, atmospheric type and water pollution type, have been greater in many respects. Toxins more nasty for example.

          How do you know we didn’t affect the climate? Perhaps the drought leading up to massive fire seasons in the late 50’s and early 60’s was a result? We weren’t even paying attention.

          We CAN have an effect SK. But I put little faith in being able to accurately predict what those effects are in advance.

          Is it not hubris to think we can not have an effect on our own habitat, just as much as the assumption that we can actually determine what and how to affect our habitat?

          • JAC

            How do we know we don’t effect the climate?

            We do and we don’t.

            You can argue that all things being equal, you spitting in the ocean raises the sea level. There were a billion trillion water molecules and you added 100,000. Thus, a billion trillion and 100,000.

            But all things are not equal

            The effect man places upon the massive feedback loops that operates the Earth’s systems is insignificant

            To cause an effect of change which means altering the feedback loops would be an influence in orders of magnitude greater than multiple asteroid strikes.

            We can’t even dish out an equivalent to a small hurricane.

            Man cannot change the climate.

            The day we can stop a hurricane, maybe you can state your case then – but even then, I doubt it.

          • JAC,

            What people confuse themselves with is that they believe that the Earth system is either static or in equilibrium.

            But it is neither.

            It is dynamic

            Think of a marble at the bottom of a paint can in a paint shaker.

            It’s bouncing all over the place, never in one place and the motion appears completely random (it isn’t, it is chaotic, but to most people that will be the same thing)

            Now you walk over and start kicking the paint shaker. What effect do you have on the system?

            Nothing.

            You cannot add chaos to a system that is already chaotic. There is no way you can claim or show that your kicking made the marble bounce differently then how it would have bounced without your kick.

            Is there a time you can kick it so hard to knock it over?

            Sure but that is what you would need to do – alter the entire feedback loop and at this point that possibility simply does not exist as a power of humanity.

            You can argue if the paint shaker wasn’t shaking, your kicking would make the marble bounce but fantasizing over a hypothetical system that does not represent the reality is pointless.

    • Hello Truthseeker,

      I have felt the same way for sometime now. I’m with USW. I’d rather have the informtion available on the internet to sort through, than have accept what ever Big Media throws at me. Its impossible to know the truth, but you can still get a pretty good idea of what’s going on. I dread the day the government censors the internet.

    • Truth Seeker,

      What I see in the question you ask is this:

      How lazy can I be in finding the real truth.

      That is the issue – most people want to do nothing and get the truth and their freedom delivered to them on a platter.

      You cannot be lazy and be free at the same time.

      There are great forces out there who wish to take what you have – including your life – and if a person fails to be aware, active, and engage in their own effort, they will be consumed.

    • Truth Seeker,

      I hope you will re-visit the media section of the article. I did not intend this to be a hit piece on Politifact. Its important to understand all news needs to be questioned, even a trusted source. Understanding how they twist the facts will help sharpen your bulldookey detector. Most reporters will report a fact (or a small portion of one), but then finish wit a conclusion, where opinion comes into play.

      I did like your response, makes me feel like Japan, “I have woke a sleeping giant”. LOL

  2. Good Article LOI! 🙂

    I’ve never read the site myself, but have read articles quoting them. One of the things that popped into my mind was how journalism is also biased, something I beleive to be true. I have wondered what percentage of journalists are left wing vs. right wing? Also wonder if this bias is not reflective of where they get their higher education as well. This would need some research, which the weekend will provide, so I’ll look that way after the workweek ends.

    This should provide for some good investigative research and postings, look forward to hearing all sides on this.

    Peace and Live Free!

    G!

    • Forgot to hit the button again!

      • G!,

        Glad you liked it. You nailed a great point on education. Liberal professors will turn out a larger percentage of liberal graduates. For example, “indeed, in 1982, 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative” (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986: 48), quoted in Sutter, 2001″

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

        I look forward to your research. Good reason to stay in the warm and dry.

        • LOI!

          I’ve almost completely shut off the MSM. I listen to the local news in the morning to get the weather, and they still amnage to piss me off with their biased news reporting. All or the posters here give a much better outlook on these issues, as we get both sides of it, rather than just one side.

          That may be the reason I come here everyday, the discussion on important issues is far better presented be everyone.

          I will look into the education aspects and see what I find.

          Peace and Live Free!

          G!

  3. LOI…nice article and probably spot on. I never go to any of the fact checks and Snopes and such. I would not believe them any more than I believe the links and postings that are on the internet. I prefer to rely of talking to specific people. Articles and such are written from the perspective of the author. I think most people know this.

    even on this website, people post links to back up claims and who says those links are correct. BF made an interesting comment the other day concerning Global Warming and he is correct. There are loads of scientists on BOTH sides with “credible” data….No one knows what or whom to believe.

    I get challenged quite often because I do not post links. There is no reason. 90% of my postings come from experience and talking to people and reading intel reports. It has been my experience that Intel reports are factual….it is when they get manipulated for specific purpose when they become tainted and non factual. So Snopes and political blogs and fact checks, in my opinion, are still biased and lean towards the Center left…

    BUT that is my opinion. If I have seen something and experienced it and there is an author or book that says it isn’t so….who is correct? Academia is just as bad.

    So, Beck etal….they are entertainment. However, I still stand by something that I do not see anywhere. Let us use Beck as an example. He is a blow hard and he is an entertainer of sorts. He is egoistic, as all news media personalities are….but….if he is such a liar, why is he so popular? Unless, of course, it is for entertainment only. If the message from Fox is so wrong and full of lies, why is it so popular? Interesting. There will be hypothesis and answers as to why but I think the common denominator is trust.

    Why is CNN a second rate news organization now? And MSNBC? Why are their ratings so low? Why are they losing advertising support? I will admit to having mostly conservative friends but I do have some die hard liberal friends…and my own son is so far left he can see the right approaching from the other side….he used to chain himself to trees in California and crap like that…but even he says that he has found Fox to be more accurate than CNN and MSNBC. He does not like them…but even he thinks they are more accurate and less biased.

    Who the hell knows….conservatives watch Fox..liberals watch CNN and MSNBC…and both claim they are right. So, I do not give weight any longer to many articles, books, academia….I watch what is happening and do not believe politicians.

    Nice article tho.

    I am looking at inches of WET snow in Fort Worth….we do not get these types of snows except every thirty or so years….not built for it. We get ice storms all the time but not snow like this. However, tomorrow it will be 55 degrees.

    • oops left out the number of 9 inches of wet snow….breaking trees and power lines and canopies..etc.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Why is Beck so popular? Simple, his message resonates with a lot of people. There is a broad spectrum of people right now that simply do not trust the government anymore, regardless of which party is in power. To all of these people, a massive reduction, or perhaps even an elimination of government entirely seems like a pretty attractive idea.

      Many are coming to realize that THE VERY BASIS FOR GOVERNMENT is lies, damn lies, and statistics. A lot of the people have lost trust and faith in government. Without the trust and faith of the people, government loses legitimacy.

      The people are not sure yet how to get from where we are now to a “post-government paradigm”, but the fact that Beck generally toes the line of “the government is not the solution, it is the PROBLEM” hits home with an ever-increasing segment of the population.

      Some people characterize him as a Republican shill, but I am not certain that is accurate. It seems he tends to be more “small-l libertarian” for the most part.

      I am HOPING that what we end up seeing from the Tea Party movement is that more and more people reach the conclusion that “if whatever you are doing isn’t hurting or imposing on anyone else, what do I care?” I have seen a few of my friends who I used to characterize as religious right-wingers starting to head in this direction, which I find encouraging. I have also seen some friends that I used to characterize as “left-wing liberal” starting to head in this direction as well.

      Perhaps those who say Americans need to meet in the “center” are actually correct, but perhaps the true center is a place where we all realize that we can run our own lives MUCH better than a bunch of “intellectual idiots” in Washington can.

      We can always hope 🙂

      • Ok Peter…I can see that. I view Beck as an entertainer of sorts with a message. His message of gov’t is the prob is probably making people look harder into things.

      • Peter,

        He may have started as a Republican, but is moving closer to Stossel and the Libertarians. Consider the 9/12 Project he started and the way he covered the Tea Parties. His most basic message is “wake up America!” (funny, seems like I’ve heard that somewhere before)

  4. v. Holland says:

    “”Here’s what they have to say about Beck 🙂

    * True: 0(0)
    * Mostly True: 0(0)
    * Half True: 1(1)
    * Barely True: 2(2)
    * False: 5(5)
    * Pants on Fire: 2(2)””

    I think the above -Says it all!!

  5. How the heck did Politifact win a Pulitzer? Maybe the Pulitzer means as much as a, oh I don’t know, Nobel Peace Prize?

    Thanks for exposing the site, LOI. Beck is a threat (FOX is a threat, Palin is a threat). Attack, attack, attack.

    • Glad you liked it, Kathy.

      Its my hope, that the internet will either change MSM, or reduce its influence
      on America. With print, TV and radio, they could control the message, the web is outside their control, and is gaining power every day.

  6. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Why would I ever believe what anyone else ever told me without checking the facts myself?

    I have been fooled way too often in my youth, have trusted too fully and not asked enough questions.

    To revive an old quote from wayback, “When somebody says everyone knows… it really means that nobody knows”.

    As my pappy used to say: “first study both sides of an issue, then argue for the side you disagree with most, then and only then make up your mind which side you are on”. Not bad advice from a bartender with a tenth grade education eh?

    • I still get fooled some, its hard to make yourself question and check everything you are exposed to today. And its even harder if something matches your own bias. When I get an email saying Obama is after our guns, I know he is likely to do this, so my first reaction is to believe and pass the false info onto my contacts. Now I usually check such emails before responding. I do still miss a few though, I posted one on Target being anti-American, and could not have been more wrong.

  7. If much of what we see with our own eyes can be distorted and muddled, how much of the world is distorted and muddled while interpreted through other people’s eyes?

    It is worse in politics. Politics is not rational – it is wholly irrational – an environment where reason has failed and force and violence prevails.

    To demand truth, and reasoned rational thought in such a place is, well, irrational.

    • I think I understood what you thought you think you meant you said.

      I just finished shoveling wet friggin snow from a flat roof that is 60 x 40. How come no one up there told me this was hard work?

    • Flag,

      Most people here are part of the TV generation. They grew up watching their parents watching the “news” and accepting it as fact. When they reported it was raining, it usually was. It takes an act of will for most to examine all those things in life we all were taught were true, and to find out if reality matches our perceptions.

      Somehow, when reading your post, it came out as if spoken by Spok talking to McCoy. 😆

  8. Good analysis, not really too surprising though.

  9. Ray Hawkins says:

    There are a wide range of issues with this posting I’d like to offer comment on:

    1. There appears to be not much rhyme or reason for who and what they select for ‘fact checking’. Whom they select/do not select is not reason enough to dismiss those whom they do check. So – yes there would appear to be bias in the subject they do fact check – but ask your self the question as to whether or not there is bias in the substance of what is fact checked. If they adequately reference and support their conclusions (from most everything I have read there, they do) then what is there to dispute?

    2. Nary is there mention made of an entire portion of the site devoted full bore to Fact Checking POTUS – odd, but not suprising. Check out their Fact Check of the SOTU – how biased do they seem now?

    3. There are an extensive number of people fact checked on the site – and they cover the entire spectrum. Even some faves of the far left are well skewered on this site (e.g. Rachel Maddow);

    4. Humans are precluded by cognitive makeup from excluding all bias – you can become more objective but not completely objective;

    5. Please take notice how LOI does not really dispute the fact checked Beck comments – LOI focused more on ancillary issues surrounding/partially related to the core statement. If you don’t understand that then you make think that Beck was somehow wronged by Politifact when they were, in the cases presented, 100% accurate;

    Overall, Politifact I would rate fairly high in terms of objectivity and sticking to the facts. It is apples and oranges to compare them to Fox News/Fox entertainers, MSNBC, etc.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Great point — any bias in the subject matter Politifact chooses to address is irrelevant in terms of whether or not they are correct in their assessment of same. Its very easy to forget this simple fact.

      • Buck,

        The networks have 20 million viewers every night, the fact that they have NOT fact checked any of their news anchors, but devote so much effort at debunking Beck with his 1-2 million.

        There is your bias, in what they and the MSM decide to report.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          LOI, never said there was no bias. But take the next step — is what Politifact is finding (on those subjects it chooses to report on) correct?

          • Their conclusion are not completely or always correct.

            Check out the link and go down to the story on Stern’s visits to the white house. Turns out Beck used the white house data but they find him guilty because he still referenced the orginal data instead of the new revised data since then.

            Check out the link regarding those with business experience. Beck used someone else’s data and they admit he used it. But in the end they hold him responsible for His words because he didn’t research enough to find the flaws in the chart he used.

            In both of these cases you could conclude he spoke the truth based on the information he had and the context he used it.

            This is the inherent problem with judging truth when dealing with political and sarcastic rhetoric instead of scientific reports or those making flat statements of fact.

            In fairness, however, Beck is great at over dramatization and stretching things to their limit. And I agree he crosses the line at times.

            I think the big question, as posed earlier today, is where do we go to get information we know is not tainted? I don’t think there are any single sources any longer. And sometimes many sources aren’t even enough. It is almost as if someone is making the whole effort so arduous that common folks will give up trying to find the truth.

            I know. I just started the next big conspiracy theory. Cool huh?

            Have a good weekend Buck
            JAC

          • Buck,

            Sorry, I thought I showed some cases where they were incorrect, granted some are correct. Ex.

            John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” Glenn Beck

            Fact, confirmed by USW, it was in a book Holdren co-wrote. That’s their pants on fire rating! What is the difference in writing and publishing
            an ideal and “endorsing” an ideal. Proper framing can make a lie be true.

            “Mitt Romney … gave you government health care that is now bankrupting the state” of Massachusetts. Glenn Beck

            It’s the economy, actually False
            (This is an opinion, not a fact. A fact can be proven, and I have yet to see them offer their proof, therefore they gave an opinion, presented as a fact, which is a lie. I will be happy to retract this statement if you or they can prove the Mass. healthcare was economically viable :lol:)

            Van Jones “is an avowed, self-avowed radical revolutionary communist.”

            Half True “Was,” not “is” (sorry, I never saw where he retracted being a radical or communists.)

            Still waiting for you or Ray or these yo-yo’s to
            show me where he recanted communism or radicalism.

            So to answer your question, “is what Politifact is finding (on those subjects it chooses to report on) correct?” In some cases, yes, they are correct, when covering conservatives, no, they
            will, IMHO, lie.

            Damn, in my not so humble opinion(I admit to being a little full of myself)

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              LOI – you’re really starting to get my eyes to glaze over on this my friend. So here goes…

              LOI Says “John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” Glenn Beck

              Fact, confirmed by USW, it was in a book Holdren co-wrote. That’s their pants on fire rating! What is the difference in writing and publishing
              an ideal and “endorsing” an ideal. Proper framing can make a lie be true.”

              Ray Says ~ There is a huge difference between writing about a subject matter and endorsing it – you do get that do you not? Beck has made it his stated mission (along with other such high minded folks like Sean Hannity) to force the adminsitration to dump its own people – one way to do that is to outright lie about the person and intentionally mis-characterize things written or spoken;

              LOI Says – “Mitt Romney … gave you government health care that is now bankrupting the state” of Massachusetts. Glenn Beck

              It’s the economy, actually False
              (This is an opinion, not a fact. A fact can be proven, and I have yet to see them offer their proof, therefore they gave an opinion, presented as a fact, which is a lie. I will be happy to retract this statement if you or they can prove the Mass. healthcare was economically viable 😆 )

              Ray Says ~ LOI – did you bother to actually read the entire piece and any of the references? If the bottom falls out on tax revenues what do you expect to happen? That is not opinion sir – that is fact.

              LOI Says – “Van Jones “is an avowed, self-avowed radical revolutionary communist.”

              Half True “Was,” not “is” (sorry, I never saw where he retracted being a radical or communists.)

              Still waiting for you or Ray or these yo-yo’s to
              show me where he recanted communism or radicalism.”

              Ray Says ~ Again – I am wondering if you read the entire article LOI and any of the references? Even the site states that he has never specifically disavowed – however – his writings indicate a differing political lean than that of a current communist;

              LOI Says – “So to answer your question, “is what Politifact is finding (on those subjects it chooses to report on) correct?” In some cases, yes, they are correct, when covering conservatives, no, they
              will, IMHO, lie.”

              Ray Says – I was trying to be kind earlier LOI – Politifact is easily harsh on left leaning folks as well – strange that you didn’t cite or analyze any of that work. You have proven nothing LOI – but your own bias when reading. 🙂

              • Ray:

                Point of order on the Romney health care.

                If you think back the issue came up in the elections. Mass. was having problems with the state system a year or two before the primaries.

                Some of the R’s tried to use that against Romney but he pointed out that after Gov the legislature made some big changes that guaranteed it would bankrupt the system.

                It was known to be dragging down the state budget even then.

                Now, unless someone does an analysis both are technically incorrect because you can’t quantify the effect of each separately. They happened in tandem and then together.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                JAC – its far less correct to state as fact that Healthcare in MA was to blame. That is an excuse of convenience as ANY program in the State could be used to justify saying that it is bankrupting the state.

              • Ray

                And therein lies the bias.

                I would say at best they are equally correct or incorrect.

                The drain caused by healthcare was appearing before the downturn. We all know increased costs also hurt businesses. The extent can not be quantified now because the rest of the economy went down for other reasons.

                To use this statement to call someone a Liar is in my view intellectually dishonest on their part.

                As such it creates the appearance of a purposeful bias to find Beck a liar.

                To me its like a feeding frenzy. They have solid ones they can use. Once found they need to find more and more. Competition to keep the site and their name fresh. So they start stretching the connections.

                It is not necessarily a left or right bias but it is a biased analysis to find an assumed conclusion.

                And the “conservative” sights and “Fox” news and even Beck fall victim to this.

              • If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it most likely is indeed a duck.

              • Ray Says ~ There is a huge difference between writing about a subject matter and endorsing it –(well no Ray, not when you write a book, you are bringing a subject matter forward and presenting it for consideration. If it’s something you think is really stupid, like Beck’s “Inconvenient Book”, you indicate that you think this ideal is really bad or off. To write a book and NOT disclaim agreement is to state
                it has your endorsment, you HAVE TO REFUTE IT, OR YOU ARE ENDORSING IT!!!

                Ray Says ~ Again – I am wondering if you read the entire article LOI and any of the references? Even the site states that he has never specifically disavowed – however – his writings indicate a differing political lean than that of a current communist;

                (So what is his new political leanings? Different? I missed that as being a new party. Is it socialist or Marxist, that are different degrees of communist? Again, the WH had resources to counter this claim, unless they could not, because it was the truth,)

                Beck has made it his stated mission (along with other such high minded folks like Sean Hannity) to force the adminsitration to dump its own people –

                Ray, I have to take this as a false statement unless you can offer any proof? Beck’s stated mission is to get America to question everything.
                He has used his show to question how so many radicals got into the WH, and has laid out his reasoning for calling them radicals. They have plenty of media access to refute his claims, including being invited to appear on his show. Instead they attack Becks credibility and character. I don’t care if he is a drunken manwhore, was he right? Answer that!!!

                Hannity, I have no opinion, not someone I watch, nor Rush.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @LOI – back in your court…..

                Ray Says ~ There is a huge difference between writing about a subject matter and endorsing it –(well no Ray, not when you write a book, you are bringing a subject matter forward and presenting it for consideration. If it’s something you think is really stupid, like Beck’s “Inconvenient Book”, you indicate that you think this ideal is really bad or off. To write a book and NOT disclaim agreement is to state
                it has your endorsment, you HAVE TO REFUTE IT, OR YOU ARE ENDORSING IT!!!

                2/13 Response – No LOI – I’m guessing you do not understand non-fiction writing. If someone writes about the Holocaust and potential effects the event would have on survivors they need not specifially disavow the Holocaust to write about it – just because they do not specifically state it was bad does imply they support it. Not sure why you’re having a hard time understanding that.

                Ray Says ~ Again – I am wondering if you read the entire article LOI and any of the references? Even the site states that he has never specifically disavowed – however – his writings indicate a differing political lean than that of a current communist;

                (So what is his new political leanings? Different? I missed that as being a new party. Is it socialist or Marxist, that are different degrees of communist? Again, the WH had resources to counter this claim, unless they could not, because it was the truth,)

                2/13 Response – You’re mixing different things here trying to make a point that does not exist. Jones’ later writings – specifically with respect to “green jobs’ lean more capitalist than marxist. I need not proclaim a specific formal allegiance to a party to write about it. As for the White House – they were stupid for ever nominating they guy – not because of what his political lean was 5 or 10 years prior – but because he was grossly unqualified for the job. Once the ring wingnuts jumped on the commie thing it was zero sum game – no matter what evidence may have existed to the contrary.

                Beck has made it his stated mission (along with other such high minded folks like Sean Hannity) to force the adminsitration to dump its own people –

                Ray, I have to take this as a false statement unless you can offer any proof? Beck’s stated mission is to get America to question everything.
                He has used his show to question how so many radicals got into the WH, and has laid out his reasoning for calling them radicals. They have plenty of media access to refute his claims, including being invited to appear on his show. Instead they attack Becks credibility and character. I don’t care if he is a drunken manwhore, was he right? Answer that!!!

                2/13 Response – Beck has made it clear on his radio show that he intends, one by one (meaning the appointed officials), to take the administration down. It is by using nonsense such as with Holdren to play on FUD with folks with such as yourself that these are all radicals in the White House. For a WH perspective Beck is best left ignored and therefore minimized. Responding to him legitimizes him – which would be a horrible strategy.

                Hannity, I have no opinion, not someone I watch, nor Rush.

              • Ray, response at #16.

          • v. Holland says:

            Take any person-rate their actions only on what they get wrong-include exaggeration to flat out wrong-only show one side of this person.

            Now tell me, what is the outcome-it is character assassination- when only one side is shown and if you have been made to think this person never gets anything right -you simply judge him more harshly-which is obviously their point. Truth is not always so simple, one can tell the truth and still lie by omission. Think of your job-if you were only judged by your mistakes little and big and no one paid any attention to what you did right-what would happen?

            • V,

              Great point! And the fact that they found no true statement by Beck really shouts out their lies.

              • v. Holland says:

                It certainly highlights their intentions-Seems like they would at least try to not be so obvious.

                Noticed Limbaugh had no true ratings either-they did give him (1) mostly true : “Sen. Arlen Specter’s party switch could “end up giving Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level so that the nominees never get out of committee.” Of course this was for something that in their minds is a negative for republicans.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @V – but ask the simple question – is the assessment true or not?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @LOI – logically you are once again incorrect. That they do not write about the overabundance of truth from Glenn Beck does not inherently make the small handful of statements assessed lies. They are still lies. Maybe Glenn Beck just lies a lot? Just sayin’

              • v. Holland says:

                Or maybe that’s just the perception that some web sites, that say they promote truth are trying to create. 😆

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @ V Holland

              “Take any person-rate their actions only on what they get wrong-include exaggeration to flat out wrong-only show one side of this person.”

              Here is a test V – replace Politifact with SUFA, replace Glenn Beck with Barack Obama – still feel the same way?

              • Yes-There is a big difference in being an opinion blog that is open to everyone’s opinions and being a web site that states :

                “”PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in American politics. Reporters and editors from the Times fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups and rate them on our Truth-O-Meter.””

                They set themselves up as Fact checkers-they imply unbiased reporting of FACTS, yet they choose to only post the negative when it comes to Glen Beck. They post their opinions in some cases, not facts. I also find it hard to believe that they have never checked a statement by him and found it truthful, so I must conclude that they simply don’t want to post anything good about him and yes that is my opinion. If they want to help us find Truth-then they should be more balanced in their postings-lets face it -they have to pick what they are going to check-so trying to make those checks balanced wouldn’t be that hard and it would be a lot more helpful in finding the truth-their stated purpose.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                V – once again (loud buzzer) you are wrong. You need to try and understand that there are two separate things occuring here – the selection of what they choose to fact check and then the validity of the product of their work – you’re trying to say they are one in the same and they are not. There are several Liberals they fact check on the site and in many of those cases the fact checked statements shed no positive light on the target. Why are you whining about how they fact check Rachel Maddow?

                And again for Beck – I am certain that if they increased the pool of statements they fact check on him then there would be a demonstrative number of factual statements he made. That the pool is small does not diminish the validity of the work – it only diminishes if they try and conclude something overall about Beck.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Another note for V – if I took your approach I would assume everything reported by Fox News to be a lie – simply because of the frequency and bend of their angle on stories. However, much of what they report is in fact factual.

              • What I dislike about PolitFact is their Truth-o-meter, their articles are as good or bad as others but their Truth-o-meter presents a false picture-they write individual articles fine-they can be judged on there content but this truth-o -meter can too easily be construed to show whatever they want it to show.
                Even if one believes that they aren’t doing it intentionally the results are the same.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                What other type of Likert scale would you suggest?

              • v. Holland says:

                I would recommend that they don’t use one-it promotes the idea that they have done extensive research into the person that they simply don’t do in any kind of measurable standard.

              • v. Holland says:

                I need to clarify-I have no problem with them having a scale to determine the rate of truth or untruth-I have a problem with their combining these ratings into an eye catching graph.

    • Maybe it is safe to say that those who heve been inbedded in politics for quite some time, as a politician or journalist, most likely has a biased opinion on the subjects, one way or the other, and unless you are like minded, most likely will play the BS card, or in some cases, the liar card.

      Journalism, as far as the media, are as equally bised as the different sides of the political spectrum. It is was it is! 🙂

      G!

    • Ray and Buck

      Ray, Been wondering where you were on this one. Must have been busy day huh?

      I happened to have heard a couple of the Beck comments live that were included in the rating. I think this site is guilty of the same thing many are. They try to take a single sentence and remove it from its context.

      You have called Beck a liar, liar, liar before based on what these types of sites have said. Yet I have listened to his piece in question and don’t find the lies to the same extent or at all in many cases. Bias perhaps in “interpreting” what is being said? I take Becks comments in total context. He mixes comedic satire and cynicism in with his commentary. Quite often it is his satire that is then tested as true or false. You would get the same result if you used the methodology on Jon Stuart.

      Another little trick is to narrow down the definition so tightly that the one being rated can only fail. And this is of course done after the comment is made. The Van Jones is a communist is a classic example. Politfact says its a lie because he is “was” but “is not any longer”. Yet I heard a talk he gave this year where he continued to push the exact same philosophy. I don’t think he “was” I think he “is”. So on what basis doe Politfact call this a lie? Do they require “party” membership as truth?

      I came across a bunch of this kind of stuff at HuffPo the other day. Was going to debunk but then just gave up. It was far too much work.

      Bias does matter because it affects how the questions are framed or which questions are tested and in or out of context. Perfect example was Ray’s accusation regarding the supposed hoax letter from Haiti.

      Ray stated that the letter lied about the Clintons being in Haiti at the same time. But the writer didn’t actually say they were there at the same time. That was Ray’s perception of what was said. I read it as having both possible meanings, especially given that we knew they weren’t. Now Ray’s perception is affected by his bias (not saying what kind). So he interprets it one way and declares LIE.

      If you share his interpretation then you agree. If you don’t you scratch your head and scream BIAS.

      Key point from me is that WE ALL need to be very careful when looking at these supposed fact checkers. That includes those who think they are objective. Ray nailed it when he said, everyone has biases and being completely objective is very hard if not impossible, for most folks (but not all).

      In general I find it amazing how much media time (all media) is being spent evaluating the media talking heads while the Politicians and Bureaucrats are burning down the country. Just freakin brilliant there you media types.

      Don’t you guys find it strange how much effort is being expended to prove that Beck and Limbaugh are “liers” these days? Or the big focus on Fox itself. It all seems sureal to me.

      Hope you both had a good day and your weekend will be full of fun.
      JAC

      • JAC…..why didn’t you warn me that shoveling wet snow can be hazardous to ones health?

        Jac says: Don’t you guys find it strange how much effort is being expended to prove that Beck and Limbaugh are “liers” these days? Or the big focus on Fox itself. It all seems sureal to me.

        D13 queries: Don’t you think that it is because the left is being hurt by these guys? Do you really think that the general populace is ignorant enough to just believe Limbaughg and Beck simply because they said it? (Never mind, Obama in power answered that question). I have noticed that if someone on the right says something untrue or the facts do not check out, they are liars. If the left does it, it is a mistake or a “mis-speak”. Does not change anything but I do believe that there or no unbiased fact checks out there…right, center, or left.

        • Colonel!

          Wow, we both played in the snow today, fun isn’t it 🙂

          Come on now, all you got was alittle dusting, something for the kids to have fun with.

          We have front end loaders removing snow at work and trucking it out! Some sidewalks likely won’t be seen till spring (like the on in front of my house) as they are 3-5 feet deep, depend on how faest the plow trucks were going.

          Enjoy it Sir! It’s great stuff!

          G!

        • D13

          I tried to warn you guys not used to the seasonal workout.

          Keep back straight and use your legs to lift. Take twice as long if needed instead of loading up the shovel

          OH, and keep a long coat or sweater covering your lower back so it doesn’t chill while working.

          Of course if I were in Texas I probably would have just put the 4×4 in gear and waited for the warm to melt it away.

          There is no doubt that attacks on Beck and Limbaugh are because they are causing damage. What I find sureal is the media’s participation in the game.

          And yes, there are sheep everywhere. When the masses wake up they are usually to quick to accept anything that fits their concern that something is screwed up.

          As I said a couple of weeks ago. We are at a crossroads in many ways. Not just the country but the “movement” itself. I think we have reached the point where it gels into something meaningful or simply explodes into numerous factions and coopter groups.

          I just heard Becks AM radio show. He was going hard on Medina. Sounds like alot of folks climbed up his ladder on the whole thing and he aint feelin the love. He mentioned that he had received tons of emails suggesting she was surrounded by “truthers”. A guest asked where these came from and got a BS answer from Beck.

          Im guessing Perry and Aunt Mae might have some idea. Anyway, looks like it worked and your dark horse is now a dead horse.

          Funny how we say we want regular folks to run and then we trash them for not giving “politically astute” answers. I didn’t think her first response was all that bad, given how many folks are now raising questions. But then she started throwing dirt on herself trying to cover the smell. Oh well!

          Here’s to you Colonel.
          Some day soon you and I must compare some notes and dig into things a little deeper.

          JAC

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Ray, Been wondering where you were on this one. Must have been busy day huh?

        Ray Says ~ Spent most of day at work with internal legal counsel – not how I enjoy spending a Friday. I will have to deconstruct you here JAC…..

        I happened to have heard a couple of the Beck comments live that were included in the rating. I think this site is guilty of the same thing many are. They try to take a single sentence and remove it from its context.

        JAC Says – “You have called Beck a liar, liar, liar before based on what these types of sites have said. Yet I have listened to his piece in question and don’t find the lies to the same extent or at all in many cases. Bias perhaps in “interpreting” what is being said? I take Becks comments in total context. He mixes comedic satire and cynicism in with his commentary. Quite often it is his satire that is then tested as true or false. You would get the same result if you used the methodology on Jon Stuart.”

        Ray Says – Yes I have called him a liar, But he also speaks truth, more so in his writing than when he does radio or TV. With respect to the statements, they are either truth or not truth. I was not thinking of Beck as satire – but it is fitting – IF – you understand satire. Satire is not meant to be just a joke, or stretching things a wee bit. Satire is using wit and ridicule to present exactly what the actor intends, and is usually very passionate about, to get across. So when Beck uses satire, he means what he says – his presentation vehicle is just different.

        JAC Says – “Another little trick is to narrow down the definition so tightly that the one being rated can only fail. And this is of course done after the comment is made. The Van Jones is a communist is a classic example. Politfact says its a lie because he is “was” but “is not any longer”. Yet I heard a talk he gave this year where he continued to push the exact same philosophy. I don’t think he “was” I think he “is”. So on what basis doe Politfact call this a lie? Do they require “party” membership as truth?”

        Ray Says ~ I get what you are saying – but that narrowness of use has very express and specific purpose as used by Beck – and he never attemtped to hide it. The purpose is to present a message so simple and crisp that is resonates, and resonates it did. Liberals are actually known to be terrible about this. Linguists like George Lakoff have spent years trying to educate Liberals on how to counter this Conservative approach – but as we have seen again and again – they suck at it. The Jones thing was no accident – short and simple which is why it was assessed the way it was.

        JAC Says – “I came across a bunch of this kind of stuff at HuffPo the other day. Was going to debunk but then just gave up. It was far too much work.”

        Ray Says ~ Its a lot of work – I don’t blame you one bit.

        JAC Says – “Bias does matter because it affects how the questions are framed or which questions are tested and in or out of context. Perfect example was Ray’s accusation regarding the supposed hoax letter from Haiti.Ray stated that the letter lied about the Clintons being in Haiti at the same time. But the writer didn’t actually say they were there at the same time. That was Ray’s perception of what was said. I read it as having both possible meanings, especially given that we knew they weren’t. Now Ray’s perception is affected by his bias (not saying what kind). So he interprets it one way and declares LIE.”

        Ray Says – here is the exact wording from the posting: “Pulled all the security off the rescue teams so that Bill Clinton and his wife could have the grand tour, whilst we sat unable to get to people trapped in the rubble.” I am really scratching my head wondering how you construe this as anything other than the author stating they were there at the same time? Please help me here. Remember also – SoS has been there one time only – and would have left BEFORE the authors arrived there! There must a minute chance they are collectively relaying anecdotal things they heard from others – but they never say that – all the material (read it one more time JAC) is offered as, and I quote, “their observations”.

        JAC Says – “If you share his interpretation then you agree. If you don’t you scratch your head and scream BIAS.”

        Ray Says ~ stop scratching – there is nothing to intepret.

        JAC Says – “Key point from me is that WE ALL need to be very careful when looking at these supposed fact checkers. That includes those who think they are objective. Ray nailed it when he said, everyone has biases and being completely objective is very hard if not impossible, for most folks (but not all).”

        Ray Says ~ You are 1000% correct – as I have said before – follow the trail – I am required to do that because of the academic stuff I do. If you find a source that always follows sound methodology then sure, you don’t need to decompose everything damn thing they say all the time – but from time to time you should keep them honest.

        JAC Says – “In general I find it amazing how much media time (all media) is being spent evaluating the media talking heads while the Politicians and Bureaucrats are burning down the country. Just freakin brilliant there you media types.

        Don’t you guys find it strange how much effort is being expended to prove that Beck and Limbaugh are “liers” these days? Or the big focus on Fox itself. It all seems sureal to me.”

        Ray Says – I agree with the media research folks for the most part. They are, overall, left leaning – accept it – thats the way it is – but that does not mean they always have an agenda. Further left or far right – yes – they have agendas – no doubt.

        • Ray

          Years ago I and my coworkers had to deal with Jimmy Carter, his family and many, many others interrupting our work and private lives so they could float on a river.

          Everyone referred to the entire group and Jimmy Carter and his entourage. “Carter and his entourage floated the river.”

          But you see there were actually different groups and different groups floating. The Sec Service showed up 7 days in advance. They floated ahead, and flew overhead, etc etc.

          It completely screwed up our lives and prevented certain work from being done for a couple of weeks.

          Yet it was commonly referred to as a single event by us locals. Most of whom were ticked off over the whole ordeal.

          So, now back to the actual quote. “Pulled all the security off the rescue teams so that Bill Clinton and his wife could have the grand tour, whilst we sat unable to get to people trapped in the rubble.”

          All security pulled from guarding the rescue teams. Security was used to cover Bill Clinton and his wife. First his wife and then Bill. Two days of interruption and security pulled. Whilst we sat unable to ….. Could be they sat for two days or they had to stop and sit while security was diverted on two separate days.

          Or it could be as you say. Point is it could also mean something else when you look at common language use. Especially and angry short note to someone known.

          I do not claim it to be either way. I am trying to show how you can read it more than one way. Your bias, as in life experience tells you one thing. But mine, tells me other possibilities exist.

          So this in itself would not have been a red flag to me. Nor the 25 year old dressing down a colonel. Seen that also. The orphan comment seemed out of no where.

          Now, you never told me what it was that caused you to think hoax so quickly. Was it the Bill Clinton and his wife or something else?

          I am also curious if you have any idea on who or why these things keep popping up.

          Thanks for taking time to respond back.
          Good day mate.
          JAC

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            JAC – but lets not forget – it is stated as what they observed. They were not there when SoS was – not sure how they observe things that occurred before their boots were on the ground.

            Anyway – I’ll try to go short here as a long/large Saturday looms….

            I thought this was a b.s. story the moment I read it. While bits and pieces seem potentially factual based on other things anecdotal (the 25 year old you mention), overall it did not pass sniff test.

            The adoption comment – that is out of left field;

            Pretty sure the the US Air Force was handling air traffic control rather than USAID;

            The comment: “another organization full of little Obamaites and Communists that openly speak against America ” in reference to USAID – POTUS is pretty damn good if his army of Obamaites has already deeply penetrated USAID – there may be punks and idiots in USAID – but this comment seemed contrived and planted;

            Not releasing water to rescuers? Sorry – I am not buying that one

            One or both were supposed grizzled ex-Special Forces with long history of living/working in the worst places on Earth – and they’re going batshit over a place to pee? Not buying it.

            If they are a formal rescue team with special equipment that locates buried people than they are either being dishonest or they are downright stupid if their quartermaster does not bring along decontamination gear or other essentials needed in prolonged rescues. What – do they just run out to the disaster sight with their equipment and hope someone else shows up with a shower or an air conditioned tent? Bullshit I say.

            The final bullshit straw was the ‘don’t give money’ because the slimy French or Liberal left will just use it to further their goals – that tells me straight up this was a ‘hit piece’ – anyone that does rescue for a living and goes to international places knows for a fact that they are walking into situations that are likely night and day to us politically, socially, culturally. The quakes in Pakistan or China, the Banda Aceh tsunami, the quake in Haiti. In any crisis as such, a rescuer as such is focused on the rescue and then in many cases the recovery mission afterwards (sometimes teams are rescue focused only) – they know that basic essentials of survival cost money – to suggest everyone close their wallets reeks of a political hit job here – not even that of a jaded rescuer. I say he/they are full of shit – if you’re that pissed off then get out of the rescue business.

        • Ray:

          You need to explain this a little more:

          “Ray Says ~ I get what you are saying – but that narrowness of use has very express and specific purpose as used by Beck – and he never attemtped to hide it. The purpose is to present a message so simple and crisp that is resonates, and resonates it did. Liberals are actually known to be terrible about this. Linguists like George Lakoff have spent years trying to educate Liberals on how to counter this Conservative approach – but as we have seen again and again – they suck at it. The Jones thing was no accident – short and simple which is why it was assessed the way it was.”

          Are you referring to him stating Jones was an avowed communist? And by using communist it creates an image that sticks?

          But heres the problem with this one. I heard Jone make that statement on tape myself. And then he continued to speak in support of clearly Marxist policies.

          Anyhow, was wondering if this is the use of language you are referring to.

          Thx
          JAC

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            JAC – not sure what you wanted me to explain deeper – but here goes….

            Beck uses very precise and targeted words, statements and language to make and drive home his points – and he does this very effectively. Liberals, as a whole, do a terrible horrible job at this – then they end up in defensive posture (or no posture at all which is worse). Think of a more resonating example – the term ‘death panel’ was coined to Sarah Palin (although I don’t think she actually came up with it – she simply isn’t that intelligent – but it does not matter now). As this term spread like wildfire, the Liberals had nothing to really counter that – other than to say “liar”, “not true”, etc. But the point is, that is the position ultra-conservatives such as her come from – they effectively use one-liners to really deeply resonate with people and play upon underlying pain/pleasure principles. Liberals are either too dumb, don’t have the spine, or both to effect the same- so rarely do they control message. IMHO that is a major reason their Healthcare/Health Insurance Reform failed (see – I don’t even know what they hell it is!) – they could not effectively get the message out, conservatives filled that void and controlled the debate forward. The GOP has more power with fewer seats in Congress – isn’t that something? 😉

            Van Jones – his more recent writings to me did not read as marxist/communist but far more capitalist – I have not heard much of him speaking (what would be more recent). My net net on him is I think he is an ass, an opportunist who was never really qualified to do the job he placed into. IMHO he is someone who does not know or understand his underlying philosophy and therefore vacillates between extremes or whatever gives him money, clout and power.

            • Ray

              Thanks for clearing up. I wasn’t sure I understood your main point about one liners or phrases.

              I would say, however, the left is not inept at this practice. Its just that as the two sides battle every now and then an opportunity for something like “death panel” comes along and has great power. I would bet it wouldn’t have been so powerful if there weren’t already serious concerns. And of course a growing hatred for everything Pelosi and Reed.

              Think back to phrases used by the left to get the SCHIP budget increases a few years back. Or the phrases to justify nationalized health care or global warming.

              One of the best ever contrived was the term “old growth”. Most don’t know it but the scientists didn’t recognize such a thing in forest habitat because it was a “political” term and not scientifically based. The left hammered on that until the scientists finally tried to define it. Each time the greens said hell no, that’s not it. And the science would try again. The very term evoked strong emotions among citizens who had no clue about forest ecology. Visions of fairies and massive trees with moss hanging everywhere. But that is not what was being pushed on the ground by the Algorian crowd.

              I will keep a sharper eye out for this phenomena now that you mentioned it. You may be correct in that the “conservatives” are better at it. Which does make one wonder why.

              RE: Van Jones. I would agree that his later speeches and writings appear more fascist/socialist. But certainly not capitalist. Remember, fascism and the progressive believe is that govt can manipulate and control the private sector to achieve its “social” goals. The communitsts always thought it would fail and lead directly to communism.

              It seems that it actually evolves into mercantilism or “crony” capitalism as the left like to call it. The rich will only be used for so long before they find ways to control the situation to protect themselves.

              Jones never publicly denounced his previous claim of being a communist. That gave Beck and others the opening they needed. But if he had Beck would have simply focused on his “progressive” fasciolist views.

              Here’s the sad fact Ray. If Beck hadn’t of targeted this guy, how long would he have lasted in the Administration? Let alone why did he get invited in the first place?

              Not using this to justify Beck’s behavior at all. I do wonder though.

              Guessing you won’t see this until later, given your comment about the upcoming day.

              So I hope your Saturday was fullfilling and productive. Going for a short walk about today myself. Will find some high place to sit with my son and dog and watch the storm clouds pour over the snow capped mountains.

              Best wishes to you and yours Ray.
              JAC

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                JAC – more on Jones….

                Not sure why he got the invite in the first place – my guess is his knows someone or was able to successfully pass off as an SME in area for which he is not.

                People like him have a way of washing out sometimes – I don’t mind that Beck got him tossed – I just think it was for the wrong reasons. Just writing a couple of point papers and knowing the right people does not qualify as subject-matter-expertise – it just means you worked the people and the system to get a free ride. Eventually Jones’ big mouth would have said something stupid in his subject matter area and he would have been called on it.

        • Ray Says – I agree with the media research folks for the most part. They are, overall, left leaning – accept it – thats the way it is

          Ray, go back to the top, look at where you are, where you chose to come and post. Stand Up For America,
          Waking America Up One 3:00 AM Phone Call At A Time

          Are you really telling us to accept it?

    • Well here is your Obama fact check. And again, what shouts to me is his promise kept, if compared with Beck’s truth rating. Did Beck lie about ACORN or the Tea Parties? They were pretty major media stories, so why no rating? I must conclude his statements were true, and Politifact does not want to allow anything positive to be reported about Beck. Do you question the validity of lies of omission?

      The Obameter Scorecard

      * Promise Kept 91

      * Compromise 33

      * Promise Broken 14

      * Stalled 86

      * In the Works 277

      * Not yet rated 2

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        LOI – may shock your system – but don’t look/focus on the numbers alone – one promise kept that they rate here was his promise to buy the kids a dog (I’m being serious). I am sorry, but ‘I promise to buy the kids a dog’ is a little different than ‘I promise to fix the economy’.

        I find it a good thing that they are so willing to track everything he promised to.

        And understand, they have a finite number of people to do this stuff.

        That Politifact did not rate Beck on Tea Parties or Acorn statements does not make them true – it also does not make them lies.

    • Ray,

      On the State of Union speech, I would give Poli, fair ratings, but would be much more interested in their rating the networks coverage.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @LOI – then put a request in – see what they say

        • DAMNITRAY, don’t use logic and reason on me!!

          OK, that’s a good suggestion, but off point. As it stands, I still see bias that amounts to making false statements from their site. Journalists are by their job description supposed to present both sides, or fair coverage of a story.
          That the present two rating on Beck for “true” rating, but could not find any true statements he made.

          And good morning to you, hope all is well?

  10. You think I’m gloomy

    Read this guy…
    https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/88/chris-hedges.html

    We stand on the cusp of one of the bleakest periods in human history when the bright lights of a civilization blink out and we will descend for decades, if not centuries, into barbarity.

    He mis-reads anarchy, but most do anyway….

    • Too many resistance movements continue to buy into the facade of electoral politics, parliaments, constitutions, bills of rights, lobbying and the appearance of a rational economy.

      The levers of power have become so contaminated that the needs and voices of citizens have become irrelevant.

    • BF

      I am guessing, this guy and his friends are the ones screaming in the streets and burning stores at every G-? summit.

      Does have some good quotable quotes though.

    • The author sounds like a liberal elitist that has an internal civil war going on inside of his mind with conflicting views of conservatism and liberalism.All this rolled up into a package playing centrist that could disarm any dimwitted neophyte into thinking his predictions will definitely be true.Chicken Little at its finest.But to what purpose?

    • réfugiée says:

      Bonjour, les amis–

      I found this statement from Monsieur Hedges to be interesting:

      “The abject failure of activists to push corporate, industrialized states toward serious environmental reform, to thwart imperial adventurism or to build a humane policy toward the masses of the world’s poor stems from an inability to recognize the new realities of power.”

      Does the author therefore imply that “serious environmental reform,” the end of “imperial adventurism,” and a (global?) “humane policy toward the masses of the world’s poor” would have prevented the present/approaching crisis? Perhaps I am oversimplifying his words. He appears to be saying that we are in trouble because the elite socio-communist-fascists have not been in control and have not been able to achieve these goals.

      Bonne journée à tous!

      • I had the same thought when I read it. I must admit though, he pretty lost me when he starting going on about radical Christians. Sheeesh……’radical Christians’ are least of America’s problems.

  11. A look at higher education and it’s possible effects on journalism in America, part 1:

    College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

    By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

    Harvard’s faculty of arts and sciences hit President Lawrence Summers with a vote of no confidence after he privately wondered about the abilities of women in science and math. (Steven Senne — AP)

    Friday’s Question:

    It was not until the early 20th century that the Senate enacted rules allowing members to end filibusters and unlimited debate. How many votes were required to invoke cloture when the Senate first adopted the rule in 1917?
    51
    60
    64
    67

    Free E-mail Newsletters
    Daily Politics News & Analysis
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now
    Federal Insider
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now
    Breaking News Alerts
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now

    The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

    • Ignore from “Harvards Faculty to Sign up now”, don’t know how that got in there.

    • G!,

      Good find. FYI, the U of Columbia, MO, is the (or one of) the leading schools of journalism, meaning the have a lot of influence in the nation.

      I’m guessing 67, a 2/3’s majority?

  12. Part 2:

    Although it is the subject for another essay, the fact is that there are very few good conservative reporters. There are many intellectually impressive conservative advocates and opinion leaders, but the ideology does not seem to make for good journalists. In contrast, any examination of the nation’s top reporters over the past half-century would show that, in the main, liberals do make good journalists in the tradition of objective news coverage. The liberal tilt of the mainstream media is, in this view, a strength, but one that in recent years, amid liberal-bias controversies, has been mismanaged.

    http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/09/columbia-journalism-review-the

  13. When i look at the big picture of the bias in trying to make a pretty honest man like Beck into a down right liar that is not worth listening too, i immediately threw up the BS flag and saw the twisting that had to be done for the statements of Becks to be incorrect or in their case malicious lies.
    JAC eloquently used the Van Jones example and also the point on satire and sarcasm. But lets give the progressive organization credit for all 7 false and pants on fire statements even if they are anywhere from BS twistings to actually correct.

    Beck is on the radio 3 hours a day and on TV an hour a day not including his appearances on Greta and O’Reilly were they ask many questions. So 25 hours a week or a 1000 hrs just in this last yr alone as he was on CNN before that and his audience was about 17 and even if it was higher he was on their station so he was held to a different light or bias then. SO if Glenn says 7 things an hour or 1 thing every 8 or 9 minutes, which is extremely low as he covers a lot,but to make the math elementary, we get 7000 statements divided by 7(questionable) lies.. SO with these extremely conservative numbers we get 1000/1 for a 99.9% + accuracy rating…

    We all know that they are trying to discredit Glenn ,so we wont put any credence into his findings and they hope that we will be like them and totally ignore what he is enlightening us with and be side tracked with their attack the messenger tactic instead of the facts.

    Rock on Glenn until they take your microphone away

    • Ty

      But remember. Beck himself has said many times not to take his word for it. Do your own checking and cross checking.

      He is starting to get sloppy though and his general demeanor has changed lately. I thought his response to this lady running for Texas Gov was quite odd frankly.

      Do not discount everything he says due to accusations or errors from time to time. I know much has been confirmed. But you now how celebrity status can affect folks.

      Just sayin….be careful.

      Yours in the fight for freedom
      JAC

      • Point well taken JAC. I will continue to do my homework and research many different sources. I guess i like to listen to Beck because he opens up a lot of doors and discusses news that i dont hear anywhere else from SEIU to Van Jones and other czars. I also learn about movements that i new very little about or mixed in with conspiracy theories, like the progressive movement. I will research this movement more so it wont be such a weak point with me and also to check Beck.

  14. Diary of a Snow Shoveler

    December 8 – 6:00 PM: It started to snow. The first snow of the season and the wife and I took our cocktails and sat for hours by the window watching the huge soft flakes drift down from heaven. It looked like a Grandma Moses Print. So romantic we felt like newlyweds again. I love snow!

    December 9: We woke to a beautiful blanket of crystal white snow covering every inch of the landscape. What a fantastic sight! Can there be a more lovely place in the whole world? Moving here was the best idea I’ve ever had! Shoveled for the first time in years and felt like a boy again. I did both our driveway and the sidewalks. This afternoon the snow plough came along and covered up the sidewalks and closed in the driveway, so I got to shovel again. What a perfect life!

    December 12: The sun has melted all our lovely snow. Such a disappointment! My neighbor tells me not to worry- we’ll definitely have a white Christmas. No snow on Christmas would be awful! Bob says we’ll have so much snow by the end of winter, that I’ll never want to see snow again. I don’t think that’s possible. Bob is such a nice man, I’m glad he’s our neighbor.

    December 14: Snow, lovely snow! 8 inches last night. The temperature dropped to -20. The cold makes everything sparkle so. The wind took my breath away, but I warmed up by shoveling the driveway and sidewalks. This is the life! The snow plough came back this afternoon and buried everything again. I didn’t realize I would have to do quite this much shoveling, but I’ll certainly get back in shape this way. I wish I wouldn’t huff and puff so.

    December 15: 20 inches forecast. Sold my van and bought a 4×4 Blazer. Bought snow tires for the wife’s car and 2 extra shovels. Stocked the freezer. The wife wants a wood stove in case the electricity goes out. I think that’s silly. We aren’t in Alaska, after all.

    December 16: Ice storm this morning. Fell on my ass on the ice in the driveway putting down salt. Hurt like hell. The wife laughed for an hour, which I think was very cruel.

    December 17: Still way below freezing. Roads are too icy to go anywhere. Electricity was off for 5 hours. I had to pile the blankets on to stay warm. Nothing to do but stare at the wife and try not to irritate her. Guess I should’ve bought a wood stove, but won’t admit it to her. God I hate it when she’s right. I can’t believe I’m freezing to death in my own living room.

    December 20: Electricity’s back on, but had another 14 inches of the damn stuff last night. More #$%^&** shoveling! Took all day. The damn snow plough came by twice. Tried to find a neighbor kid to shovel, but they said they’re too busy playing hockey. I think they’re lying. Called the only hardware store around to see about buying a snow blower and they’re out. Might have another shipment in March. I think they’re lying. Bob says I have to shovel or the city will have it done and bill me. I think he’s lying.

    December 22: Bob was right about a white Christmas because 13 more inches of the white shit fell today, and it’s so cold, it probably won’t melt till August. Took me 45 minutes to get all dressed up to go out to shovel and then I had to piss. By the time I got undressed, pissed and dressed again, I was too tired to shovel. Tried to hire Bob who has a plough on his truck for the rest of the winter, but he says he’s too busy. I think the asshole is lying.

    December 23: Only 2 inches of snow today. And it warmed up to 0. The wife wanted me to decorate the front of the house this morning. What is she, nuts?!! Why didn’t she tell me to do that a month ago? She says she did but I think she’s lying.

    December 24: 6 inches – Snow packed so hard by snow plough, I broke the shovel. Thought I was having a heart attack. If I ever catch the son of a bitch who drives that snow plough, I’ll drag him through the snow by his balls and beat him to death with my broken shovel. I know he hides around the corner and waits for me to finish shoveling and then he comes down the street at a 100 miles an hour and throws snow all over where I’ve just been! Tonight the wife wanted me to sing Christmas carols with her and open our presents, but I was too busy watching for the !@#$$%^%^^&& snow plough.

    December 25: Merry Christmas my foot! 20 more inches of the damn slop tonight – Snowed in. The idea of shoveling makes my blood boil. God, I hate the snow! Then the snow plough driver came by asking for a donation and I hit him over the head with my shovel. The wife says I have a bad attitude. I think she’s a fricking idiot. If I have to watch “It’s A Wonderful Life” one more time, I’m going to stuff her into the microwave.

    December 26: Still snowed in. Why the hell did I ever move here? It was all HER idea. She’s really getting on my nerves.

    December 27: Temperature dropped to -30 and the pipes froze; plumber came after 14 hours of waiting for him, he only charged me $1,400 to replace all my pipes.

    December 28: Warmed up to above -20. Still snowed in. The BITCH is driving me crazy!!!

    December 29: 10 more inches. Bob says I have to shovel the roof or it could cave in. That’s the silliest thing I ever heard. How dumb does he think I am?

    December 30: Roof caved in. I beat up the snow plough driver, and now he is suing me for a million dollars, not only the beating I gave him, but also for trying to shove the broken snow shovel up his ass. The wife went home to her mother. Nine more inches predicted.

    December 31: I set fire to what’s left of the house. No more shoveling.

    January 8: Feel so good. I just love those little white pills they keep giving me. Wonder why they tied me to this bed??

  15. “Believe half what you see and none of what you hear.”

    The public doesn’t adhere to this rule and, with the media being so biased, they suck it up like the gospel, or Obama would never have been elected in the first place. Polls, public and pundits, Oh My!

    The fervent hope here is the public is finally starting to stir. (all commenters on this site are excluded from my broad statement).

    The only fact checkers I trust are that good couple at snopes.com.

    Take a small dose of CBS or MSNBC, a large dose of Fox and several independent sources, mix it in a blender, pour through a sieve. Whatever’s in the sieve are the facts. Discard the rest as pure waste.

  16. @LOI – back in your court…..

    Ray Says ~ There is a huge difference between writing about a subject matter and endorsing it –(well no Ray, not when you write a book, you are bringing a subject matter forward and presenting it for consideration. To write a book and NOT disclaim agreement is to state it has your endorsement, you HAVE TO REFUTE IT, OR YOU ARE ENDORSING IT!!!

    2/13 Response – No LOI – I’m guessing you do not understand non-fiction writing. If someone writes about the Holocaust and potential effects the event would have on survivors they need not specifically disavow the Holocaust to write about it – just because they do not specifically state it was bad does imply they support it. Not sure why you’re having a hard time understanding that.

    (Ray, I’m kinda dense, that’s why I’m having such a hard time. Spoon feed me a little at a time. Seems like apples and anvils here. Would Holocaust not be a history book? Holdrens was a textbook on ecoscience. He/they, were making predictions, they were expressing theories they considered worthwile. And its very interesting if you look at their proposals, and compare them to China’s one child policy today. I wonder if Holdren looks at their human rights violations
    and feels any remorse?)

    from USW’s article linked above,

    Next we have new “Science Czar” John Holdren. In 1977, Holdren co-wrote a textbook with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, ”Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.” The three authors summed up their guiding principle by saying, “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.” In order to achieve such, the three discuss totalitarian methods in order to control the population. Those methods offered as suggestion included forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile. Hmmm, that sure doesn’t sound like America. Holdren’s people deny that he advocated for such a thing, and the textbook supports Holdren’s claim. However Holdren does offer in the book that the Constitution supports the idea of forced abortion if necessary.

    The text also advocated how the authors felt they could best achieve this utopia of population control and resource management. They formulate a “world government scheme” they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world’s resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an “armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force” to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty (From Fox News). Interesting, yet another appointment that feels that the sovereignty of the nation should be sacrificed to the international community.

    The Fox News article also discussed that now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being “in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog.” Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted (if not perhaps he can couple it with Bill Gates plan to use water pumps to stop hurricanes). Holdren has long been a global warming fanatic, who in 1986 made the prediction that global warming would kill 1 billion people by the year 2020. He has a fair list of doomsday predictions that never came true. Yet he is now the top science advisor to the President of the United States.

    (And to get back on topic,)
    John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” Glenn Beck

    Pants on Fire! Holdren never endorsed these ideas

    “Holdren does offer in the book that the Constitution supports the idea of forced abortion if necessary.”
    (how would you rate this one Ray, half true? lie? or is pants on fire lie correct?)

    LOI – back in your court…..Ray….going…going…gone!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Ray Says ~ There is a huge difference between writing about a subject matter and endorsing it –(well no Ray, not when you write a book, you are bringing a subject matter forward and presenting it for consideration. To write a book and NOT disclaim agreement is to state it has your endorsement, you HAVE TO REFUTE IT, OR YOU ARE ENDORSING IT!!!

      2/13 Response – No LOI – I’m guessing you do not understand non-fiction writing. If someone writes about the Holocaust and potential effects the event would have on survivors they need not specifically disavow the Holocaust to write about it – just because they do not specifically state it was bad does imply they support it. Not sure why you’re having a hard time understanding that.

      (Ray, I’m kinda dense, that’s why I’m having such a hard time. Spoon feed me a little at a time. Seems like apples and anvils here. Would Holocaust not be a history book? Holdrens was a textbook on ecoscience. He/they, were making predictions, they were expressing theories they considered worthwile. And its very interesting if you look at their proposals, and compare them to China’s one child policy today. I wonder if Holdren looks at their human rights violations
      and feels any remorse?)

      Ray’s Response – My analogy is based solely on someone writing about ‘what is’. If you see my other response below that should underscore that the authors were in no way advocating or supporting invasive population control as such.

      from USW’s article linked above,

      Next we have new “Science Czar” John Holdren. In 1977, Holdren co-wrote a textbook with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, ”Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.” The three authors summed up their guiding principle by saying, “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.” In order to achieve such, the three discuss totalitarian methods in order to control the population. Those methods offered as suggestion included forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile. Hmmm, that sure doesn’t sound like America. Holdren’s people deny that he advocated for such a thing, and the textbook supports Holdren’s claim. However Holdren does offer in the book that the Constitution supports the idea of forced abortion if necessary.

      The text also advocated how the authors felt they could best achieve this utopia of population control and resource management. They formulate a “world government scheme” they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world’s resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an “armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force” to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty (From Fox News). Interesting, yet another appointment that feels that the sovereignty of the nation should be sacrificed to the international community.

      The Fox News article also discussed that now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being “in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog.” Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted (if not perhaps he can couple it with Bill Gates plan to use water pumps to stop hurricanes). Holdren has long been a global warming fanatic, who in 1986 made the prediction that global warming would kill 1 billion people by the year 2020. He has a fair list of doomsday predictions that never came true. Yet he is now the top science advisor to the President of the United States.

      (And to get back on topic,)
      John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” Glenn Beck

      Pants on Fire! Holdren never endorsed these ideas

      “Holdren does offer in the book that the Constitution supports the idea of forced abortion if necessary.”
      (how would you rate this one Ray, half true? lie? or is pants on fire lie correct?)

      Ray’s Response: LOI, let me be clear, I have never read the book. I actually went to Barnes this morning to look for it but they do not have it. At any rate, I am forced to comment on what was reportedly in the book and what has been reported by others as content in the book. The following is quoted by Media Matters from the same book you, USW and Glenn Beck are all referencing: “far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries”. Moreover, MM posted an image copied from the same book: “Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies” (Note – they are referring to the section entitled “Involuntary Birth Control”.

      I dunno LOI – I’m not seeing advocating here but more so reporting ‘what is’. So – as a factual statement from Glenn Beck – this is not fact. If I use the Politifact scale – I would probably lean on Pants-on-Fire for the ridiculousness of the claim.

      LOI – back in your court…..Ray….going…going…gone!

      Lobby back to you LOI

      • Ray

        “John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” Glenn Beck

        Pants on Fire! Holdren never endorsed these ideas

        “Holdren does offer in the book that the Constitution supports the idea of forced abortion if necessary.”

        “has proposed forcing abortions”

        If that’s in the book, then Beck is making a true statement. Media Matters might be correct that Holdren qualifies it and Beck takes it out of context, but by your own standards, that is not a lie.

        I think you hit it out-of-bounds:lol:

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @LOI – uh – no

          Proposing implies intent – there was clearly no intent and quite the contrary – they are describing and analyzing.

          Keep trying….

          • Read the book.

          • Here you go-read it all or just go down till you get to the printed pages of the actual book at the end-see what you think- take note of words like UNFORTUNATELY on page 787, first column -about sterilizing women(unfortunately it won’t let me copy the page or I just don’t know how)-I think it gives a pretty good indication that the authors aren’t just discussing ideas but endorsing many of them. My personal opinion-these people are nuts

            http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

            • v. Holland says:

              I also found this-because I was looking for an article that was debating for him-thought it was rather revealing and funny actually that this was the best he could do:it’s an old book and people were just misreading it and today they deny believing in this stuff and then in the end, he wants to change the subject.

              “But wait, you may be wondering: How do I know that the Ehrlichs are right about the their 1977 text, and not the conservatives? Well, because I walked over to the Engineering Library on the Princeton University campus, where I’m located, and got the book. And I can see how one could misread a text this old—from such a different time. But nevertheless, the criticism of Holdren today on this basis is exceedingly thin and stretched. The book is three decades old; Holdren isn’t its first author; it takes a stance against such policies; and neither Holdren nor the Ehrlichs support these policies today, either. Couldn’t we talk about something that’s actually important and contemporary?”

              http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/

            • V!,

              Wow, great find!

              Also a typical conservative tactic, using facts to counter liberal spin!

  17. SUFA with a special heads up to Ray (because its along the lines of our prior discussion).

    Thought I would share a blast from the past involving media bias and its effect on story telling. And the media’s attempt to dismiss the bias and errors as insignificant.

    I was personally invovled in this one. And for the record, I personally developed the white paper that refuted the basic claims that 70% of the streams had been “fouled”. Seems the network just didn’t want to admit they were rebutted. Part of the problem was the complexity of the rebuttal as opposed to the inflamatory phrases used by those who pushed the story (RAY, this was the part I wanted you to see. Where the left is not completely inept at the phraseology game.). Turned out green groups were the pushers, along with some of the Algorians.

    ENJOY

    Behind the New Apology From NBC
    By BILL CARTER
    Published: February 27, 1993
    Sign In to E-Mail

    Print

    For the second time this month, NBC News has acknowledged on the air that pictures it used to illustrate a news story were inaccurate.

    But unlike the abject admission by NBC that it participated in the faking of evidence used in a report on General Motors trucks, NBC executives now say that a report on the clear-cutting of forests in Idaho, broadcast last month on the “NBC Nightly News,” was a minor mistake. Betty Hudson, senior vice president of corporate communication for NBC, said the latest instance was “analagous to a newspaper miscaptioning a picture.”

    She also said that the timber industry was trying unfairly to capitalize on the damage inflicted on NBC News by the General Motors report, even though, she said, “the two incidents are in no way comparable.”

    But other NBC executives, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the latest episode was similar in some ways to the General Motors truck incident. In both cases, they said, the network had made its mistakes in pursuit of a way to illustrate its otherwise valid reporting, had gone to sources outside NBC to provide the illustration, had failed to supervise thoroughly what it put on the air and had delayed responding to initial complaints about the accuracy of the report until it was criticized in a public forum.

    The “NBC Nightly News” broadcast the report on Jan. 4. It dealt with the environmental impact of clear-cutting on forest land, using as an example the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. The report included interviews with Forest Service officials who cited, among other concerns, danger to fish from increased runoff of sediment into lakes and streams. The Protests Begin

    The video film that accompanied the report included two brief shots of what appeared to be dead fish in streams. After protests that began with an Idaho state senator and reached all the way to the floor of the United States Senate — but that NBC maintains were orchestrated by lobbyists for the timber industry — the network issued a correction on its “Nightly News” Wednesday night.

    Tom Brokaw, the NBC anchor, read a statement acknowledging that NBC had “inadvertently used footage from another forest further south, (JAC INSERT HERE. WATCH NEAR THE END OF THIS WHERE FURTHER SOUTH TURNS OUT TO BE) not from Clearwater.” He later said:, “We also showed workers conducting tests on water in the Clearwater where fish appeared to be dead. In fact, they were not; they had been stunned for testing purposes.”

    Two weeks after the report was broadcast, Marguerite McLaughlin, the Idaho state senator from the region that includes the Clearwater forest, wrote a letter to Steve Friedman, then the executive producer of the “NBC Nightly News,” charging that the report was inaccurate on many grounds. In an interview yesterday, she said the film of the fish was just one example. “I’ve lived here over 35 years,” she said, “and I know most of the water runs clear. I’ve never seen any fish killed.”

    But in reply to her letter, she said, “I never heard a word from NBC.” She sent her letter on to a number of higher Government officials, including Senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican.

    It was Senator Craig who denounced the NBC report on the Senate floor on Wednesday. In a telephone interview yesterday, he said: “The story is 100 percent inaccurate. There are no dead fish in the Clearwater.”

    And he added: “In television, pictures tell the story. If the pictures are wrong, the story is wrong.”

    But NBC staff members who worked on the report say the claims of fish being killed made up a tiny fraction of the three-and-a-half-minute report and that the rest of the story, about various environmental dangers posed by clear-cutting, had not been questioned.

    “What about the words in the report?” said one staff member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, saying that NBC staff members had been ordered not to talk publicly. “There is absolutely nothing wrong with them. This is becoming a feeding frenzy. Nobody is looking at the story carefully.” Human Error as a Cause

    In this case, Ms. Hudson of NBC said, the mistakes made were the fault of “simple human error.” And a person involved in putting the report on the air said, “I think this was an unfortnunate situation of too many things getting out of control.”

    Among the things that got out of control, says NBC, was the editing process, which is usually shared by the reporter and the producer of a story. NBC gave this version of how the mistakes happened:

    The reporter, Robin Lloyd, was assigned to go to Somalia immediately after researching the Idaho story and became unavailable to share the editing chore with the producer, Cecilia Alvear. Then after the producer finished a viewing copy, Mr. Lloyd caught a severe case of pneumonia, which left him unable to verify the film used in the report.

    Mr. Lloyd was present when an NBC crew shot most of the video for the story during a trip he and Ms. Alvear made to the Clearwater region. But that material was supplemented by material Mr. Lloyd obtained from two other sources, an Idaho public television station and an environmental watchdog organization known as Lighthawk.

    The charges of inaccuracy are all being made against this supplemental material. Dead or Stunned?

    On the section of tape that shows fish floating on the water, the critics said that NBC was implying that the fish were dead when in fact they were merely stunned by scientists who were seeking to count and measure the fish. But NBC staffers say the narration that accompanied the report at that point said only that testing showed 70 percent of the water to be fouled and did not state or imply that the fish were dead. (JAC INSTERTS, NO..THEY ONLY MADE THE STATEMENT AND SHOWED FISH FLOATING BELLY UP IN THE WATER. SO IS THAT A LIE OR ONLY A PARTIAL LIE OR THE TRUTH?)

    In the one error that NBC does acknowledge, a separate scene of dead fish, supposedly from the Clearwater region, actually shows a stream from a different region of the country (JAC SAYS, SEE WHERE FURTHER SOUTH IS? A DIFFERENT REGION. YEP, THE SOUTHEAST AS IT TURNED OUT, NOT EVEN THE WEST). The section of tape was supplied by Lighthawk, and NBC staff members said it was simply a misunderstanding that caused it to be labeled as being from the Clearwater region.

    Unlike the General Motors report, which has led the network to commission an independent investigation of its news practices, the Idaho report, NBC executives say, was an honest mistake of the kind that occasionally happens to any news organization.

    But NBC News employees say they are sure the network will take steps to improve the supervision of videotape that it acquires from outside sources.

    “It was a stupid mistake,” an NBC News staff member involved in the production of the report said. “It could happen to anybody. But what we learned from this is to question everybody about everything.”

    IF THEY HAD NOT STARTED WITH AN ASSUMED CONCLUSION THEY WOULD HAVE NOT FALLEN FOR THE BAD FOOTAGE SO EASILY. GORE’S STAFF WERE FEEDING THE MAJOR MEDIA STORIES BY THIS TIME AND I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT IS WHY NBC STAFF ACCEPTED THE SOURCES SO READILY. BUT WE COULD NEVER PROVE IT AFTER BROCKAW ISSUED A PUBLIC APPOLOGY. ALL WENT DARK.

    BEST TO YOU ALL
    JAC

    • “But what we learned from this is to question everybody about everything.”

      Aren’t diligent NBC reporters supposed to do this to begin with? Check the facts before they broadcast? Don’t they teach that at our lovely, liberal bastions of higher learning these days? Or is the simply “don’t get caught” curriculum?

      People swallow whatever they want to – hook, line and sinker (bad fish pun) and Gore was such the golden child at the time. Hopefully, his viral contamination is starting to wane.

      The stunned fish thing also cracked me up. Anyone who takes pictures of stunned fish knew what they were doing….BS, BS, BS…..how did they stun them? We usually use dynamite in the South.

      Kudos to you for calling them on it, JAC. Keep it real!

      • Kelly:

        The fish are stunned by electro shocking the water. It stuns them so they float temporarily so they can be put into containers for measurement and tagging.

        Dynamite is for catch and keep. Electroshock is for catch and release. LOL

        Good day to ya Kelly
        JAC

    • JAC!

      I would like to add on this. I truly believe the media is biased, and I will post on this later when I’m finished with some research. Here’s a story that I have not heard yet, although I did know that GWB did visit Ft. Hood.

      This is a CLASS ACT – Why didn’t we hear about it in the Controlled Media?

      Snopes Says it’s true!!

      Posted By: Rayelan
      Date: Tuesday, 26-Jan-2010 02:25:20

      I checked this on Snopes… it really happened.
      http://www.snopes. com/photos/ military/ forthood. asp

      This arrived from a reader:

      A retired Special Forces in Fayetteville, N.C. saw that picture of George W. visiting the wounded at Ft. Hood ..

      He wrote this reply:

      What is even better is the fact George W. Bush heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood.

      He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.

      Bush only asked for directions to the hospital then drove on.

      The gate guard called that “The president Is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital.”

      The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush they immediately offered escort and Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead.

      He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours and was finally asked to leave, by a message from the White House.

      Obama flew in days later and held a “photo ” session in a gym and did not even go to

      the hospital.

      All this I picked up from two soldiers here who happened to be at Fort Hood when it happened.

      This Bush/Obama/Ft. Hood story is something that should be sent to every voter in the US.

      Class shows up…

      Here’s more to the story!!

      The doctor in Dothan (Alabama) had his TV on in his office when the news of the military base shootings came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

      He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, “I am okay.”

      Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,”I’m the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery.”

      The soldier’s wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK.

      She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to comfort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side The nurse took this picture. The picture is of the soldier in his bed, his wife and Mr. and Mrs. GWB.

      In my opinion, the MSM, by not reporting on this event, are clearly left leaning, as I will show later.

      This would also show support for LOI’s position, that by picking and choosing the subjects of lies and truths, the media itself lacks integrity and truthfullness in what they report.

      Peace and Live Free my Friend! 🙂

      G!

      • GMan

        Thanks for that story. Have not heard anything about it.

        I feel a little taller today after hearing it.

        You also, peace and freedom
        JAC

      • Totally amazing!
        I know i havent researched this story yet, but tend to believe its true.. I guess its because GWB has shown so many times to really care about others and the soldiers and its not about him where as obama could care less about the soldiers even disdain but only care about himself. To be fair i need to research this more and if any one else finds more info, please post it. But this falls in line with their past. obama spends much of his energy on having soldiers court marshalled and he spends so much time on downplaying terrorism always jumping out front with “its only a random act” or the like. Court marshalling our guys and mirandizing and catering trials for the radical muslim terrorist. obama himself in his book even stated that when it comes down to it he would side with his people the muslims, so we know were his heart is at.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Ty – so how many U.S. Soldiers has Obama court marshaled? This is news to me.

          Thanks.

          • Your right Ray, he actually hasnt court marshalled any soldiers. I could have been more precise in describing how i feel about Holder, Napolitano and obama. How when the three navy seals captured one of the most wanted muslim terrorist who had killed and dragged 4 soldiers bodies all around Fallujah, and they just happened to give him a bloody lip in the struggle. Well Holder and obama didnt make them out to be heroes, but instead have them on trial to try to court marshall them.
            The brave men and woman of the military under Holder and obama are so afraid to point out that a crazed muslim spewing hatred of America and running around Ft Hood yelling ali akbar, that they dont report any unusual circumstances surrounding this guy in the fear of being court marshalled for insubordination or descrimination.
            obama himself doesnt do any of these things himself per say, like mirandazing the crotch burning terrorist but its weird how all military chain of command and homeland security chain of command gets skipped over on these decisions, right up to obama or a czar

            • To be more accurate in what happened here, it appears that the story is that the terrorist was not injured in the struggle. My understanding is that he was in restraints, safely in his cell, no threat to anyone, and one of the SEALS punched him. While these SEALS are heros for what they do, what they did in this situation, if I hear correctly, was wrong. UCMJ was the right action to be taken against them if that is the case. You don’t get leniency because you are really a good person the rest of the time.

              If they broke the law, they get in trouble. And also to be fair, the choice to court martial them is one that is made at the field level. It would have never, ever even gotten into the hands of Holder or Napolitano unless the field officers in charge hadn’t decided to move ahead with charging them. It was a command decision made by military commanders, not by Janet or Holder.

              USW

              • We are not aware of the circumstances under which the SEAL punched Ahmed Hashim Abed either or even whether he actually was punched or not.
                The enemy terrorist could have antagonized the SEALs by boasting of killing and dragging the AMERICAN Blackwater employees bodies, namely Scott Helvenston an ex SEAL.The SEAL could have just snapped and reacted before he thought ehh USW?If he even did it.

                A feature on the Washington Times reveals a rather interesting piece of information regarding the assault charges that have been brought against Navy SEALs Matthew McCabe, Julio Huertas and Jonathan Keefe. The lawyer for the three other Navy SEALs who comprised the team of six who captured Ahmed Hashim Abed – who are officially refusing to talk until after they have been granted immunity from prosecution – said that his clients did not see Abed being assaulted; nor do they know of any cover-up.

                So where exactly did these charges come from?

                According to the narrative in the feature, the SEALs and Abed arrived in Camp Schweidler at 5 in the morning. Following standard procedure, Abed stayed under guard for several hours before being handed over to the Iraqi police. It was during this window, it is said, that the alleged “assault” happened.

                The master-at-arms, a sailor who was responsible for guarding Abed, accused McCabe of punching the detainee in the gut, a charge that McCabe denies.

                That morning, the platoon commander was said to have seen that Abed had a bloody shirt. He reportedly questioned the SEALs, all of whom denied hitting Abed. The platoon commander forwarded a report of his inquiry up the chain of command. A probe by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) was ordered; the master-at-arms reported to the NCIS that he saw McCabe hit Abed.

                What all this resulted in is the filing of criminal charges against McCabe, Huertas and Keefe.

                The other three members of the SEAL team who captured Abed – the platoon commander, his second-in-command, and a hospital corpsman – have been called as witnesses. Their names have been withheld and their official versions of the story have not been released; but what little their lawyer revealed is enough, at least for now.

                The fact that fellow U.S. service personnel initially raised the accusations against Petty Officers Huertas, McCabe and Keefe strongly suggests that we have created a culture within our armed forces where our military personnel are now more concerned about protecting themselves from legal jeopardy for every action or statement than they are about fighting the enemy. Our troops and these SEALs need to be bold and decisive in combat, not hesitant and over-thinking every action for fear of prosecution.

              • OK, so we know that he was injured while in captivity, receiving the busted lip while already captured, not while being captured. We know that regardless of whether he antagonized them or not, they are Navy SEALS and thus should have the proper discipline not to retaliate for anything he said out of frustration or anger. That the report was filed by another service member proves that it wasn’t Napolitano or Holder on a witch hunt. The military protects its own, generally, and wouldn’t have allowed it to get that far without merit, in my opinion.

                That the other three team members wanted immunity suggests that they know something happened that should not have happened. One report that I read months ago said that the SEALS originally admitted to doing it, but the reports now say they are denying it, so we have no way of knowing which is true. My point is not to try this case here at SUFA. We simply don’t have all the facts. But my point was to make it clear that I don’t believe that Obama, Holder, or Napolitano had anything to do with the soldiers being brought up on charges. Holder has no jurisdiction in the matter, so long as it is a military court martial. Napolitano also has zero jurisdiction, as she is not part of the military chain of command. Obama, being the CIC, does have a say, and he could have chosen ot make it go away or drop charges, but in my opinion, not doing so is the right move. If these guys are guilty, they will be found guilty. If not, they won’t. But it isn’t fair or accurate to place it at the feet of the Obama administration.

                USW

              • The three witnesses are refusing to testify unless they are granted immunity, that is true.

                Their attorney, Charles Gittins, told The Times that an NCIS investigator read them their rights amid suspicions of a cover-up.

                Mr. Gittins said the three had no role in any effort to conceal details of the incident, but since they were read their rights, they want Gen. Cleveland to grant them immunity before testifying. They did not see anyone strike Abed, he said.

                “The key point is they were cooperating and, out of the blue, [were] read their rights for obstruction and that’s why they stopped cooperating,” he said. “We as lawyers have to protect them.”

                A Navy spokesman declined to comment on the immunity issue.

              • USW-“The military protects its own, generally, and wouldn’t have allowed it to get that far without merit, in my opinion.”

                TC-Not in this day and age of politically correct lunacy.Otherwise the Fort Hood terrorist attack would not have happened.

              • We are witnessing a tectonic shift in the way terrorists are being fought, moving from a military model to a law enforcement one. The war on terrorism has been replaced by the “struggle against violent extremism.” Under new guidelines instituted by the Obama administration, terror incidents are referred to as “man-caused disasters.” Counterinsurgencies are “contingency operations.” Al Qaeda leaders have been granted the full constitutional rights of American citizens. The whole tenor of the Obama administration is to downplay the seriousness of the very serious business of war.Please explain to me how this does not affect top brass in our military?Gen.Cleveland I believe it was could have scrapped this entire twilight zone episode before this bs became public.

                This shift in focus from the Obama administration has a troubling impact on our fighting forces. The brave Americans serving overseas risk their lives daily in ambiguous circumstances in which they are called upon to make many judgment calls. Now they increasingly have to worry about being second-guessed by people who were not on the scene that may jeapordize their careers, not to mention their own freedom?

              • So in conclusion I do think it fair and accurate to place blame at the feet of the Obama administration.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @TexasChem – so you’re suggesting that what is happening right now in Marja in Helmund Province is a law enforcement action? C’mon Texas – you know better than that.

                And on the subject of what we call things – first and foremost – Janel Napolitano is a first class idiot – but what we are doing strategically and tactically is really not that different now than it was a year ago.

              • Excuse me for butting in but you are putting words in Texas’ mouth.

                C’mon Ray you know better than that.

                The way the war is being handled today may be similar strategically (guess pre-obama strategy is good enough) but the mind game being played on the troops has to affect the way they go about the job. That’s what Tex was getting at and you know it. So why even go there?

              • Ahhh… Ray! So nice of you to offer me the “Red Herring” for breakfast so early this fine day but I’m more in the mood for coffee, one sugar one cream and a bagel with cream cheese.

                @ Anita- Thanks for the rebuttal to Ray.I am working nights and just woke up!

              • Thanks Tex, i havent been around of late.

                I have one more thing, if one of our soldiers does get set up by a terrorist after the terrorist bloodies his own nose or blackens his own eye or whether one of our soldiers blackens their eye or lip, our guy will be punished. The severity of the punishment is were i find a big problem with. Playing a passionate sport like hockey seems to have a lot of extra curricular activity and lots of bloody lips. Yes the coach needs to take action,maybe a few hundred laps or a one game suspension or something but not kicked off the team. Well with something much more passionate than hockey-WAR, bloody lips will be had when one antagonizes ones heart strings by laughing in your face saying we slice your boys throats when we capture you, we drag you through the streets and desecrate your bodies and you guys get kicked out of the military when we antagonize you.. if we dont antagonize you enough to strike us then we can strike ourselves and still end your service. Welll we shouldnt get kicked out , we should miss a few meals or sleep in a cell but not court marshalled

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Anita & @TexasChem – no red herring on the menu today…..but ample helpings of humble pie…….

                TexasChem: “We are witnessing a tectonic shift in the way terrorists are being fought, moving from a military model to a law enforcement one.”

                Let me help you guys clear what I think you meant. If you are referring to the manner in which KSM or the Christmas Day bomber are being handled then you are factually incorrect when you state there is a tectonic shift in policy, process or effect. Nothing has changed in the way the folks are handled – Buck, myself and others have continuously pointed that out to you. I would suggest that with the respect to aforementioned two – we already won the fight against them – we’re more so in a justice and punishment phase with them.

                With respect to my comment regarding Marja – that is not a law enforcement action – plain and simple.

                I’d also like to challenge your “new guidelines = man-cause disasters”. That was a statement by DHS Sec – where is this listed or termed as official policy why do you think that matters tactically or strategically?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Ty – I would probably lean on an current/former military folks here – but we have rules for a reason. We also do not allow just anyone to handle a prisoner (although that is not always practical). Placing someone in custody places certain responsibilities on you. In a hockey fight one player is not placing the other one into custody.

              • It is characteristic of the left to try to control reality with their use of language. This being part of the ongoing fascination with glib and articulacy; meaning intelligence and insight.”Oh mah’ gawsh yall he sounds so smart he must know fore x’actly’ what we be needn’ here in America!”

                First change “terrorism” to man-caused disaster.

                Then you can draw equivalence between terrorism and environmental concerns… and perhaps even the economy.

                But forgive me please I am rambling off topic…I seem to have forgotten the topic I was rebutting or have I?

                Let me clear up for you Ray, what I meant.

                This administrations picks of appointments to cabinet, federal agencies, SCOTUS and the brand new Czar-dom are so far left the majority of Americans have found themselves under the treatment of a chiropractor for neck pain from having to strain so hard to see what moonbat outrageous policy is going to be flung past them next!It’s like trying to watch a tennis match in which the players are using flubber flying at speeds in excess of 300 mph!

                For example instead of the “Department of Homeland Security” Janet Napolitano believes she works for the “Department of Unicorn Deflector Shield.”

                Do I need to debate the Somali pirates debacle in relation to the POTUS calling in the FBI or the constraints upon the military to get my meaning across to you?

                FACT: OBAMA appointed representatives to these agencies.

                FACT: OBAMAs’ appointees are there to press his policies and agenda.

                The stance from this administration points clearly and without a doubt to moving towards a law enforcement model when dealing with terrorists versus a military model in terms of policy.

                We are at war and hence any captures made should be treated as prisoners of war and tried and punished for their warcrimes against humanity.Period.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hello!

        You know Matthew had once Emailed me a video showing the difference in our troops when Bush was speaking and one with O speaking, and the one with Bush shows the troops cheering and applauding, but when O was speaking, they just sat there looking at him. I wish I could find it and post it here so you can see, but I don’t seem to have it anymore, and I don’t know what happened to it.

        That’s one thing I can say about Bush, he showed he cared about our troops, where like Ty said, O doesn’t care. He says he does, but he sure doesn’t show it, he only cares about how much camera time he can get.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        G – re-read the snopes link you posted – your account on this is not accurate.

        Thanks,

        Ray

        • Ray, You are correct, as snopes detailed in it’s investigation. While the story is sensationalized, and has both truth and false statements, I posted it as an example of how the written word, media, e-mail, whatever, can be biased, one way or the other.

          This story, while true in some forms shows a bias toward Obama (negative) and Bush (positive). Precisely what I was speaking of in Post #18 below.

          For the record, it was not my account, but a good example to use supporting my point below.

          Peace my Friend! Hope today finds you and your family well!

          G!

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @G – hmmm – you said nothing of the sort in your original post – you actually had JAC and Ty giving out ass slaps and atta-boys. Not cool G.

            • Ray, Post #2!

              February 12, 2010 at 6:10 am
              Good Article LOI!

              I’ve never read the site myself, but have read articles quoting them. One of the things that popped into my mind was how journalism is also biased, something I beleive to be true. I have wondered what percentage of journalists are left wing vs. right wing? Also wonder if this bias is not reflective of where they get their higher education as well. This would need some research, which the weekend will provide, so I’ll look that way after the workweek ends.

              This should provide for some good investigative research and postings, look forward to hearing all sides on this.

              Peace and Live Free!

              As you can see, I made it very clear that I was going on this ride. Thanks for joining me!

              G!

      • G-Man,
        So what’s your purpose in posting this? Snopes says it’s True? You obviously didn’t follow your own link, because Snopes debunked the ‘best’ parts of this. You know – the parts you enjoyed most.

        And then JAC, Ty, and Judy just sucked it right up. How typical.

        Factcheck.org has the entire story – the parts the Snopes doesn’t:

        http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/bush-at-ft-hood/

        The e-mail contains a grain of truth. President George W. Bush did visit the wounded at Ft. Hood only a day after the tragic Nov. 5 shooting spree on the base, as was reported publicly at the time by a number of news outlets. But since then, we’ve had a steady stream of queries about this chain e-mail’s description of the visit, in which the author embellishes the facts considerably. Army officials would not comment, so we spoke to Bush spokesman David Sherzer, who was happy to set the record straight.

        Sherzer described the visit as being “as spontaneous as a visit from a former president can be” — it was planned that same day. But Sherzer told us that Bush’s visit was coordinated with base officials, that he did not refuse escort, and that he did not overstay his welcome. As for the part about President Obama telling him to leave, Sherzer said that’s simply not true.

        Bush’s home in Crawford is a one-hour drive from Ft. Hood, and he did go to the base after being contacted by Ft. Hood’s commanding general, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone. “It is accurate to say he did drop everything to go,” Sherzer said, but he added that “we went about it in the appropriate way, which was to coordinate with the base personnel and Secret Service.” And Bush stayed for about two hours, not the six the e-mail claims.

        Sherzer told us that Lt. Gen. Cone had requested that Bush and Mrs. Bush visit with the wounded and their families, after Bush sent his condolences. The former president was “honored to be able to do that,” Sherzer said, but he coordinated with the base to make sure he was coming at an appropriate time. He was not stopped at the gate, as described in the e-mail, because he was expected and because he had a Secret Service escort.

        Sherzer emphasized that Bush is very respectful of the Secret Service’s role, which includes escorting him safely from place to place. He does not simply barrel into the car without alerting them, as the e-mail describes. The e-mail also says that Bush told soldiers to “shut up” when they offered him escort. In fact, Sherzer told us, Ft. Hood officials — who knew about his visit in advance — greeted Bush when he arrived and escorted him throughout the visit. “He would never do anything like what’s described in that e-mail,” said Sherzer, of the claims that Bush rebuffed protection.

        Finally, Bush was not sent away by Obama. “The part about being asked to leave by the White House is completely false,” Sherzer told us. Bush spent about two hours at the base and left, Sherzer said, because he did not want to take resources or time away from those who were helping the victims and families.

        As for the claim that Obama did not visit the hospital, the White House sent us press reports showing that Obama visited both ambulatory and non-ambulatory victims, and the families of the dead on Nov. 10, though much of the visit was not public. The e-mail is correct that this was several days after Bush’s visit on Nov. 6. But it’s not the case that Obama never went to the hospital.

        • Todd

          You are always the quick one to judge. And once again you are WRONG>

          I didn’t get sucked into anything. I checked the Snopes piece. In fact the link was incomplete and then I had to go through a couple of searches to find it.

          The fact that GW and Laura went and visited and did it their way, quietly made me feel a little prouder.

          Not big deal here. Never heard anything about the visit in the news.

          And I figured the stuff about Obama was BS from the get go as I remembered news talk of his visiting the hospital.

          Seems to me your perceptions are distorted by your own bias.

          • Hi JAC,
            You usually don’t fall for these, so I was disappointed. But you were pretty vague in your response, so I felt free to assume why you were “feeling a little taller today”. 😉

            • Todd:

              Ah but Todd. Remember these wise words from a professor of mine decades ago.

              “Never assume the obvious”.

              In the future keep this in mind. In my case, a bunch of negatives about someone, like Obama, would not make me feel taller or prouder. In fact it usually invokes a feeling of “same ol’ shit”.

              It is the positivie news that gives me real hope or pride.

              I was vague in my response because I just wanted to share my good feelings and not get into more dissecting.

              Also try to remember that I have given Obams his due when I thought it deserved. The bar is set high with me but I will cheer when he clears it. And the bar will remain the same regardless of who is doing the jumping.

              Any how, hope your weekend is fun filled. Your skiing should be going well this year I think.

              They are now reporting Montana snow pack below “normal”. About half the state and most of Idaho is well below “avg” snow pack. So it could be an interesting summer. 100 yrs ago almost 4 million acres of Idaho and Montana burned in approxiamately a three week period.

              Best to you this Valentines Day
              JAC

    • On of my favorite false reports,

      http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030520.asp#4

      CNN Concedes, Sort of, Distorted “Assault
      Weapon” Demonstration

      Reeling from NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre charging CNN with fabricating and “deliberately faking” a story last Thursday to demonstrate how a banned “assault weapon” has much more dangerous firepower than a legal model, on Monday’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, substitute anchor Miles O’Brien didn’t go so far as to offer a retraction, but he did concede CNN’s demonstration needed further amplification.

      [Web Update: The Washington Times on May 20 ran a story on this subject, “CNN rapped over gun segment.”]

      On the May 19 edition of the 5pm EDT Wolf Blitzer Reports, O’Brien announced: “On this program on Thursday of last week, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We reviewed that demonstration, and one on another CNN program, and decided that a more detailed report would better explain this complex issue.”

      Space limits how much I can do on this today and it’s pretty hard to explain in words what CNN showed in firing range tests, but let me try to concisely run through what CNN showed on Thursday, LaPierre’s angry reaction on Friday and what CNN showed in a revised demonstration on Monday which implicitly illustrated how their Thursday presentation was, at the least, misleading.

      — Thursday, May 15 Wolf Blitzer Reports, anchored by Kyra Phillips. John Zarrella traveled to the Broward County, Florida Sheriff’s Office’s outdoor shooting range where Sheriff Ken Jenne narrated what viewers were seeing as a deputy fired two “assault weapons.”
      Jenne explained why he favors keeping the ban in place: “Because I think guns are the tools of hunters, but these weapons are really the tools to kill people and there’s a major, major difference.”

      First, a deputy fired what Jenne described as “a AK-47, the Chinese version,” which is “currently banned.”

      Viewers saw bullets fired into a pile of cinder blocks and chunks of the cinder block flying off, leaving a big hole in one block. Then, the deputy fired into a bullet-proof vest. Zarrella observed that the bullets “clearly fired right through” the vest.

      Second, Jenne set up the next model to be tested: “This is an AK-47 also, but a civilian model. It has some differences and right now this only has a clip of 10 in the magazine — or 10 rounds in the magazine. So this is a big difference than the 30 rounds in the previous magazine.”

      Viewers then saw the deputy fire four shots toward the cinder blocks, but nothing happened, not even a speck of the cinder block flew off, never mind any hole being created.

      The very clear implication: The illegal model punches right through cinder block with devastating and deadly force, but the legal model can’t even cause a speck to fall off.

      Upon looking at the MRC videotape frame by frame, with the first rifle you could see a puff of smoke coming out of the end of the barrel as the deputy fired. But with the second gun, you could not see anything, as if no bullet were being fired. And if one was, the deputy either missed the target cinder blocks, or had good enough aim to be firing into the hole created by the first rifle.

      • LOI,

        I don’t see this as a false report at all! 🙂 There are clear intentions to deceive the public, plain and simple. I have extensive training in weapons and ballistics, This is a perfect example of Left Wing deception. It is also another example of the media being biased toward the left wing. Frankly, I don’t trust any media at this point. All I want is for them to report the damn news and keep their pathetic opinions to themselves.

        G!

        • It amazes me that millions first watched this video, shooting a cinder block, and nothing happening. I know, that’s why they are called sheeple.

          Great post on Bush!

        • That report is bulldookey.The major difference between assault rifles and hunting rifles is ease of target acquisition and rate of fire.Assault rifles normally are easier to accesorize as well.Ballistics and lbs. of force will not change dramatically by placing a 7.62mm round in an assault rifle vs a hunting rifle.

          • Tex,

            I cannot agree with this. The military defines an “assault rifle” as being capable of burst fire, or fully automatic fire (machine gun ). The media and Clinton politicians have change the perceived meaning of the term, but it is still a lie. An assault rifle that is semi-automatic only, cannot be an assault rifle. It is just a semi-automatic
            rifle.

            You would have to show me where there is a difference in the rate of fire of any semi-automatic rifles, capacity, yes, but not a significant difference in ROF.

            • LOI…

              I don’t understand what you are not agreeing with.You are stating the same thing I have! LOL

              Perhaps I should have said burst/full auto instead of just rate of fire.My main point was the weapons performance in relation to shell impact, whether in full auto or one round at a time is not affected drastically.You would still see damage to the cinder-block.

              • Now we are on the same page. Could argue, some civilian models are more powerful, the Nam era were Rem 700’s? for snipers.

                What is amazing, a NEWS video of a 7.62 X 39 rifle fired into a cinderblock with NO effect did not raise any questions at the entire CNN news service. I guess if you have 85% liberals in the newsroom, unless there is a Latte question, they don’t know
                the answer. 😆

  18. In addition to Post’s 11 and 12, I offer a third article on media bias: Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

    By Meg Sullivan December 14, 2005 Category: Research
    While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

    These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

    “I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”

    “Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,” said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

    And this: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/28/left-leaning-professions

    My purpose in looking into this is based on LOI’s subject, that perhaps Politifact.com is in fact a liberally biased media outlet who will pick and choose topics to rate, depending on the persone being rated. This research leads me to believe that, while some of Beck’s statements may be false, as PF indicated, the fact that they have no mention of Beck telling the truth indicates to me that PF, and other media outlets, are proaganda driven. While they claim to call people out, they fail in the giveing that same person credit when something is said in truth.

    When Ray, or anyone else, mentions sites like Media Matters, Politicofacts, HuffPo, as a reliable source for their argument, sometimes I cringe, knowing that these outlets are biased, and those folks that quote them are far more intelligent to fall for their BS.

    While, most of us use a variety of sources, myself included, we must all question the reliablilty of these sources. Although I aknowledge that most sources lean one way or the other, keeping an open mind about the known bias, would greatly help in coming to educated conclusions, and maybe some agreements across the board between all the great folks here at SUFA!

    Peace and Live Free!

    G!

    • All kidding aside I wouldn’t doubt if the MSM actually had subliminal messaging contained within their broadcasts.It only takes one frame.Any of you guys remember when the movie theatres actually had subliminal messages contained within their frames to get consumers to buy softdrinks and snacks.I mean cmon’ if you are going to outright lie with news broadcasts why not go all out.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @G-Man – lets try this one more time ladies and gentlemen – irrespective of the site presenting the data/assessment/audit/story/whatever – if the information is factual it is factual. That they do not nut-hug Glenn Beck and post a litany or Beck truths does not diminish any identified lie or half-truth. I have pointed out several times now that the site PF also assesses liberal/left-leaning politicians and personalities – and they are equally harsh on them and rightfully so. I’d suggest the lot of you that keep bitching about PF bias, get off your asses and go review the non-conservatives they assess. The don’t necessarily heap steaming mounds of love on those folks. You guys are making an argument devoid of logic – I think – because you cannot stand the idea that a site other than Fox news may post something factual that undermines what you think. In fact, if I think back to the premise of this article I see again where this was intended to head –

      Ray et al keeps referencing PF in their posts, giving their view of the debate a potential stronger leg

      “We” went and looked at PF and decided that since they don’t post lots of warm fuzzy stuff on Glenn Beck they are therefore biased and nothing they say can be trusted/believed.

      The message is still the same folks, whether you like the messenger or not.

      • Ray,

        The message is always going to be under scrutiny, as long as a known bias is there. It don’t matter if it’s Fox or anyone else, there is bias in all MSM, and all other media outlets. Unless you can show that bias does not exist in this arena, then what they present, true or false, matters not. Bias is bias, and too pick and choose a media outlet as reputable, knowing they are biased, and claiming there words as factual (whether they are or not), is not logical.

        I care not of the messenger, the message must remain unbiased, on all subjects, or the messenger is irrelevent.

        G!

      • Ray,

        “if the information is factual it is factual.” (Agree, but on Holdren & Jones we would have to have a SCOTUS ruling to decide, and we would likely still dis-agree.)

        “That they do not nut-hug Glenn Beck and post a litany or Beck truths does not diminish any identified lie or half-truth.”(It comes down to us making our own determinations and judgments. I see the zero truthratings on Beck as bias in the least, false and misleading at worst. Without tying that to their false ratings, I showed where I question them.)

        “In fact, if I think back to the premise of this article I see again where this was intended to head – ”
        ( I think not my friend, or perhaps I did a very poor job making my case. I find PF to be a pretty good source overall, but not without some cause for question. On AGW, no matter what you believe, the Medieval Warm Period/hide the decline is crucial, and they do not report it! They claim to be a fact check service, and so, should be held to the highest standards. Forgive me for attempting that.

        As to where I wanted this to go, I have to look back. I carry a gun most of the time, permit and FBI background check and all the BS. And I have someone to blame that on, that soured me to take that action in the first place. Back in 2000-2002, the media (before I watched FOX) spent most of a summer reporting child abductions. Turns out, abductions were steady or declining, not on the rise. Already had the permit, and they started me on the path of questioning. So I am a media created, right wing extremists. So the INTENT of this article is to suggest we all question what we are told.

        HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!

  19. Follow-up to Ray’s suggestion, I have just sent this to PF, with link here as well as my email. We shall see…

    Friday, an article I wrote was published at a blog, Stand Up for America.

    In the article I pointed out several supposed “facts” you had rated, and my reasons for challenging them. I find it highly questionable that Glenn Beck, with as much as he talks, has never said anything that is true, which is what your truth-o-meter indicates.

    If you care to respond by email, I will post it, or you can respond at the blog site directly. Note, I am not the host, just a guest writer, but I am sure he would welcome any response you might wish to make, possibly giving it a full article as well.

  20. ultramanjones says:

    Why is it so hard to see that Glenn Beck is a liar? I could turn the sound off and never hear a word he says and still see that. Get real.

  21. glennbeckbulletin says:

    Get the facts about Beck at The Glenn Beck Review, sharethisurlaboutglenbek.wordpress.com It covers his deceit and his hypocrisy and shows how unqualified he is to address any complicated issue.

  22. Americans need to wake up the fact that Beck is simply another opinion pushing charlatan who is a product of mormon cult theology and he mixes this with his personal make up as a dry alcoholic. On his radio show and Fox Network program he consistent demonstrates all the unstable behaviors of a dry alcoholic which include grandiosity, judgmentalism, intolerance, impulsivity, ADD and indecisiveness. Alongside that reality, Glenn Beck does not possess a single ounce of journalistic integrity, has no college degree, has no qualifications and he is definitely not a true conservative. But then, what can anyone expect from someone who can’t find anything filthier than their own personal reflection. Since people like Beck cannot survive on the basis of any personal merits, they survive by putting others down with lies and half truths in order to feel good about themselves. The truth about Beck is that he a dry mormon alcoholic who never got the counseling required for alcoholics. To further complicate things and confuse people, Beck flippantly throws around Christian terms like “God”, “Jesus”,”Holy Spirit” as well as voices of other so called “Spirit Powers” on his radio talk show. Beck is a mormon in active standing with the mormon church and is not a Christian. Mormonism teaches many gods, that the god of the earth was once a man who attained godhood status, there is no trinity, the cross of Christ means nothing and that Jesus Christ and Satan were brothers. Because Beck does not possess a single ounce of journalistic integrity, he is the perfect abortion poster child for Fox Network. The people who love what Beck says are no different than the impressionable sheep who loved every speech made by Adolph Hitler in his early years when he brought Germany into an era of economic prosperity These same sheep also blindly followed Hitler into one of the darkest chapters of world history. Beck and the Fox Network both cater to the same lowest common denominator of demagoguery. Beck would not know the first thing about God as he is a mormon. Someone should ask him which of the many mormon gods he kept talking about during his argument with himself on Saturday on the square in DC. Like a typical dry alcoholic, Beck even lied on national television when he spoke about holding a document signed by George Washington. That event never took Place. Unfortunately, people who love being led around by the nose do not realize that he is talking about a different god than that of Christianity, Judaism or Islam and that he has been a product of mormonism cultism from the day he started doing a radio talk show as an opinion pusher. You don’t have to have a degree in psychology to see that he exhibits all the signs of a dry alcoholic. The only reason this unstable impressionable idiot fell into mormonism was because the woman he wanted to have sex with would not do so unless they got first got married and from that point, they joined the mormon cult. Glenn Beck is as big a charlatan as Josephs Smith or the 5th grade graduate (Charles T Russell) who started the Jehovah’s Witness cult. This is Glenn Beck in a very accurate & concise nutshell. Considering the fact that Becks personal views are extreme Marxist Libertarian, his form of patriotism is false and he is a person who has no real substance or depth. It will not surprise many of use when Beck’s next big thing is to come out of the closet and announce his homosexuality to the nation. Simply put…he is just another political neocon.

  23. I find I am curious-How much research have you done? but before you answer-researching doesn’t mean reading a leftist site and regurgitating what they tell you.

%d bloggers like this: