How Did Huffington Post Get Duped by ChristWire Satire TWICE?

Feb 03 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

There’s an old joke that goes, “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on the monkey.” After yesterday, progressive new-media outlet Huffington Post reached “stage 2.” Yesterday, hostess and alleged twelve-year-old boy (as SNL memorably satirized her, embedded below for your viewing convenience) Maddow showed that she really did have the truthiest show on television, when she and her vast army of fact-checkers fell for a thinly-veiled Internet hoax, airing the joke on her news program… as news. The so-called “smartest person on television” , Maddow cited a satirical faux -news article from “ChristWire.org,” a satrical website in the style of The Onion , as real news on Tuesday. The story in question claimed that conservatives were calling on Palin to advocate an American-led military intervention to put down the increasingly violent revolution in Egypt. In response to the jeering of the blogosphere, and other pundits, MSNBC flushed the online video of Maddow’s gaffe down the memory hole , but not before media watchdogs were able to upload copies of the “news” segment to Youtube and other social-media video sites. After realizing her gaffe, Maddow, a good sport about her flub, apologetically joked on Twitter that “the bad news about a free and open Internet [was,] sometimes you get had by brilliant satirists. Christwire: 1 TRMS: 0.” As another pretend news outlet, The Atlantic, notes , progressive online news-hub Huffington Post has yet to realize that it was a joke and print a retraction, or admit that they couldn’t recognize a joke if it walked up, introduced itself, and slapped them in the face with its glove. For that matter, the Huffington Post appears to be the online version of that one guy who is a bit slow on the uptake , when it comes to jokes. Last August, HuffPo fell for another ChristWire fraud, reprinting as gospel truth a guide for women, advising them on how to tell if their husbands were gay. In the guide, the Post ’s re-print of the joke column advised women that their husbands may be homosexual if they “travel to Asia or big cities often,” among other signs. It took a gentle, yet firm, line of questioning from New York Times reporter Mark Oppenheimer for the Huff -lepuffs to realize that they had reported fake news as the real kind. This isn’t the first time that Maddow’s truthiness has come back to bite her, though. In October, Maddow accused former Republican Congressman Steve Stockam of having advance knowledge of domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh’s plans to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Maddow accused Stockam of withholding the information from authorities, out of sympathy for the violent anti-government aims of McVeigh. We shouldn’t be too hard on Ariana Huffington and the rest of her ship of fools, though. When you’re an aspiring media maven—and a progressive political hack— like her, it’s really, really hard to not let the facts get in the way of a good story. Editor’s Note: See Kathy Shaidle’s post challenging Maddow for this blunder here.

See the article here:
How Did Huffington Post Get Duped by ChristWire Satire TWICE?

No responses yet

Linguistic Magicians: What the Left Hand Is Doing

Jan 25 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

There is a storm brewing over a recently surfaced segment of The Glenn Beck Show from June of 2010. In the video, while he is talking about impeding people with strong convictions, Beck says, “you are going to have to shoot them in the head.” The clip was quickly posted on DailyKos.com along with a description of Beck’s statement. Jed Lewison, the author of the post , provides a long list of names that Beck has put up on his chalkboard, and then goes on to claim that Beck has called for their death: “The only way to stop their plot, Beck says, is to “shoot them in head” before they “shoot you. It’s worth noting that this wasn’t the first time Beck told his audience that the only way to stop their political opponents was through violence.” Although the leftist media elites fancy themselves to be so much smarter than the hoi polloi, they seem to be unable to glean meaning from context. Below Lewison’s post is a full transcript of the Beck segment. A quick read of the transcript reveals that Beck does not call for his audience to shoot anyone in the head. Instead, the “you” Beck is addressing happens to be opportunistic politicians , not his audience, and the “them” Beck is talking about are the radical revolutionaries that the politicians are using to empower themselves. This kind of willful unawareness is a staple tactic of the Left. They feign ignorance, twist meaning, and make radical assertions. By the time their marks (conservatives) have caught on to the sleight-of-hand, the media memes have run their course. Conservatives often issue a response, but by then, the narrative has already been established, and those that have a peripheral interest in politics have moved on to other news. For example, when Dutch politician, writer, and feminist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, appeared on PBS’s The Tavis Smiley Show last May, Tavis Smiley performed such an overt display of syllogistic sleight-of-hand that the term for such an act should carry his name . Smiley and Ali were discussing Islamic terror. Ali begins: “These guys are acting on a conviction. Somehow they have gotten it into their minds that killing people is a great thing to do, and they will be rewarded in the afterlife . . .” At which point, Smiley interrupts: “But… but Christians do that every single day in this country. Christians, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that’s what Columbine was. There’s so many more examples of Christians who do that than you can ever give me of Muslims who have inside this country where you live and work.” The deception is obvious. Ali is referring to acts of terror perpetrated in the name of Islam . Smiley changes the premise to violence committed by Christians. The Christians that he claims are committing acts of violence are not doing these acts in the name of Christianity; they are psychopaths that happen to have been raised in a Christian environment. Radical Muslims are committing acts of violence for the cause of Islam; they claim that their religion commands them to commit murder. When one compares the argument on an apples-to-apples basis Smiley’s assertion is shown to be pure fraudulence. Ali is caught of guard by Smiley’s logic to such an extent that the only response she can muster is “I think you and I disagree.” Smiley has never issued a correction. Next: The “Daily” Slight of Hand…

See the rest here:
Linguistic Magicians: What the Left Hand Is Doing

No responses yet

“Palin Libels Rauf” – What Was The National Review Thinking?

Jan 20 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

As if Sarah Palin hasn’t suffered enough grief over the last couple of weeks, National Review Online came out of left field with an inane column accusing the former Alaska Governor of “libel.” The object of Palin’s alleged libel was apparently the former imam of the Ground Zero Mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf . Detroit News political cartoonist Henry Payne wrote the column, accusing Palin of falsely describing Imam Rauf as a Hamas apologist who refused to acknowledge the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization. National Review ‘s Contributing Editor Andrew C. McCarthy wrote a scathing rebuttal . McCarthy pointed out the factual inaccuracies in Payne’s article and tore into Payne for treating National Review’s readers to a mendacious puff piece, leveling the weighty charge of libel while whitewashing the rich underlying basis for regarding Rauf as an apologist for Islamist terrorists in general, and for Hamas in particular. Why did the usually sensible National Review editors run Payne’s piece to begin with? In McCarthy’s words, why did his own publication allow Payne “to exploit NR’s megaphone” with an apologia for Rauf? The editors violated the standard of the founder of National Review , William F. Buckley, who insisted on using fact and reason to develop a logical argument. Payne used neither fact nor reason to develop his false moral equivalency argument. Payne’s illogical, fact- deprived premise was that Palin inflicted the same sort of “libel” on Rauf, by allegedly quoting him out of context concerning Hamas and other matters, as the Left had inflicted on Palin by accusing her of helping to instigate the Tuscon massacre through her rhetoric and targeting of certain congressional districts with cross-hairs on her website. His “proof” centered on Rauf’s belated acknowledgement that Hamas is indeed a terrorist organization after first waffling on the issue. Has it occurred to Payne that Rauf finally decided to acknowledge the obvious after his earlier waffling was exposed by Palin and others?

See the article here:
“Palin Libels Rauf” – What Was The National Review Thinking?

No responses yet

Thoughtful, On-Target Palin Responds To Attacks; Left Loses Last Grip On Reality

Jan 16 2011 Published by under 2010 Elections

Originally published on January 12, 2011 . I know, my use of the term on-target makes me a vitriolic, hateful rhetoric espouser in the eyes of some. It’s not conducive to the “new tone” we are all supposed to embrace for some unfathomable and delusional reason. Of course, this new tone doesn’t apply if one is speaking about Sarah Palin, who is apparently the cause of All Bad Things Ever, in perpetuity. Even here, we are on day three of no school due to snow. In South Carolina. Does Palin’s evil reach have no bounds?! The Left and the media, as always concentric circles on a Venn diagram, attempted for days to spin a false and odious narrative placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on Sarah Palin and everyone like her. Because, vitriol. Or something. Days of vile political opportunism, on the backs of the dead. Days of disgusting smears the likes of which I’ve never seen before in my lifetime. Days of giddily and gleefully exploiting deaths, including those of a federal judge and a nine-year-old child, all in an attempt to score political points and to silence and demonize those with whom they disagree. That the facts did not support such claims even one iota meant nothing. In fact, they absolutely ignored all evidence and truths and proceeded to just make stuff up . All focused on Sarah Palin, who miraculously manages to be a dumb old chick from the sticks and the most evil person alive. She’s kind of like George W. Bush that way, I suppose. Chris Matthews went so far as to put a graphic up during his show last night with Sarah Palin’s picture, reading underneath “ Silent: On The Lam. ” On. The. Lam. As if some fugitive, implying that she, along with the Tea Party, is somehow responsible for a massacre perpetrated by a madman. Today, Sarah Palin released a video statement. It is a thoughtful, inspiring, dead-on (violent rhetoric!) response (the full transcript can be found here ): A pitch perfect response, both from the heart and smart. Naturally, that then caused the Left to lose whatever tenuous grip they had left on reality. See, Sarah Palin was bad for being “silent and on the lam” last night. But, today, she is super icky for responding and not remaining silent. After being accused for days of having “ blood on her hands ” and of being responsible for the acts of a madman. Who, incidentally, apparently did not even watch nor listen to the news and, therefore, likely did not even have any knowledge of the supposedly evil cross-hairs graphic. Or anything else for that matter.  It was clear almost immediately that the Left was actually upset because her response was exactly correct. Based not just on emotion – actual heartfelt emotion – but on facts and reason. Pesky old reason! That does not suit. The new “in” thing is complete fabrications, mixed with a healthy dose of utter delusion. Therefore, the smears continued, predictably. First came speculation from Ben Smith at Politico , and others, that Sarah Palin was ‘stirring the pot” with the use of the phrase blood libel and that the phrase must have been fed to her by someone who “got” the context. Oh, no, that dum-dum rube obviously doesn’t know the historical context and just somehow randomly came up with that phrase while prattling inanely and brushing her hair, soon to be distracted  by something shiny. History! That’s for boys!  She was also decried for the use of the phrase itself, even though it’s been used many times by others and is a common phraseology in the political world. It is also absolutely accurate in this instance. Next came Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC)  in a desperate act of projection .

Go here to see the original:
Thoughtful, On-Target Palin Responds To Attacks; Left Loses Last Grip On Reality

No responses yet

Rand Paul: Tea Party Candidate or Leftist Machine Darling?

Dec 17 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Senate

Kentucky, birthplace of both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis , has selected Rand Paul to be her next United States Senator. Certainly, if Lincoln and Davis were alive today, Lincoln’s choice would have been either of the decidedly conservative, pro-14th amendment candidates  Trey Grayson or Bill Johnson , while Davis would have chosen Paul, the “states rights” candidate whose supporters often refer to Lincoln as a “ war criminal ” and share attitudes consistent with the racism of the Left . Ron Paul supporter Jack Hunter characterizes Rand as “ Senator Tea Party “. The Leftist TIME Magazine says Paul is “ the movement’s flag bearer in Kentucky “.  Today at The Guardian , we hear that Paul is truly a friend of the Left by none other than Michael Tracey, symbol of the Death of Manliness , bosom buddy of pro-pedophile Alex Knepper and apologist for same .  Virtually nowhere outside Kentucky is it disputed that Rand Paul was “the Tea Party candidate”, but how could a Tea Party candidate be such a looney leftist, garnering even the love of the likes of schoolgirl Michael Tracey ? The answer is that Rand Paul never really was the Tea Party candidate at all but was pushed to power in large part by an out-of-state Leftist machine very much appreciated by Tracey, et al. Tracey notes that Rand Paul is a “maverick in the making” who will prove to be an “unexpected ally” of “the Left “. Those on the left who reflexively conflate the Paul brand of libertarianism – embodied most robustly by his father Ron – with the aims of cynical theocrats like Sarah Palin or Jim DeMint not only abdicate any pretence of intellectual responsibility; they deprive themselves of a powerful ally. There’s a reason why Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican establishment were spooked by the idea of Rand Paul in a GOP senate primary. He’ll be a thorn in their sides for years to come and, along the way, likely foster a few schisms within an otherwise absurdly uniform caucus. This must be a positive development. Tracey is quite correct in his assessment about Rand Paul. Paul is kooky enough to serve as a useful marketing tool for the Left to cast him as “ the Tea Party’s crazed kingpin “, but very much on board with the Left on a number of issues that they hold dear. As Tracey notes, Paul could prove to be more of an ally to the Left than he would be to Palin, Demint and other conservatives who backed him. As a Reagan conservative, an informed Kentuckian, and one who has become quite familiar with the throat-slitting, back-stabbing tactics of the Left as documented by the David Horowitz Freedom Center , I cannot personally view Rand Paul as anything other than a Leftist . Make no mistake, Paul is less the “Tea Party candidate” than he is the candidate of a Leftist machine which propelled him to the spotlight with big money and big media originating outside the borders of the Bluegrass State. Next: Meet the Ron Paul Machine…and Friends

See the original post:
Rand Paul: Tea Party Candidate or Leftist Machine Darling?

No responses yet

Hot Post: Tone Deaf Kathy Griffin Mocks Bristol Palin in Front of American Troops

Dec 12 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

This popular post was originally published December 8, 2010 . The first rule of public performance is know your audience. Know what they like, and what they don’t, or risk becoming the latter. Self-professed D-list celebrity Kathy Griffin apparently never learned that lesson. While hosting a VH1/USO salute to American troops, Griffin saw fit to mock Bristol Palin. Strange as that choice was, stranger still was how she chose to do it . “She’s the only contestant in the history of the show to actually gain weight,” Griffin said in reference to Bristol’s trip to the finals on “ Dancing With the Stars .” Even after the troops’ loud booing, Griffin continued the attack. “No, come on, come on. She gained like 30 pounds a week, I swear to God, it was fantastic,” Griffin said. “She’s like the white Precious.” (Actress Gabourey Sidibe played the role of “Precious,” a 350-pound black woman in the hit Lee Daniels film which was released last year.) This is how you maintain D-list status. Parade in front of an audience that values honor, respect, and decency, then take an unwarranted cheap shot at a public figure’s daughter. I doubt politics had much to do with the troops’ reaction. Irreverent as they might be off-duty, our troops still have taste. Of course, tasteless jokes can still be funny. But they generally need to reference some kernel of truth. That is where Griffin utterly failed. Palin is not fat. This is what Griffin calls “fat.” Combine tasteless with untrue and you have a recipe for comedic malaise. This is one of those moments where you look at a “professional entertainer” and wonder how they manage to keep getting paid. Just look at our troops’ faces. Not only did they not find Griffin’s attack upon Palin funny, they looked like they’d be happier confined to barracks than forced to endure more. As she did in response to Keith Olbermann naming her “ the worst person in the world ” for advocating abstinence, Palin responded to Griffin with an appropriate balance of dignity and indignation. “The audience’s reaction to this ‘comedian’ spoke volumes, and the decent people I know would probably have booed her, too,” Palin told Pop Tarts in an exclusive statement. “I hope people didn’t have to pay money to hear her negativity and criticisms.” Aside from loss of valuable time, the troops did not pay. The rest of us may have chipped in though. For future shows, it shouldn’t be too hard to find better entertainment than Griffin. Perhaps a dog trained to jump through hoops of fire? — Walter Hudson is a political commentator and co-founder of Minnesota’s North Star Tea Party Patriots , a statewide educational organization. He runs a blog entitled Fightin Words . He also contributes to True North , a hub of Minnesotan conservative commentary. Follow his work via Twitter , Facebook , and YouTube .

More here:
Hot Post: Tone Deaf Kathy Griffin Mocks Bristol Palin in Front of American Troops

No responses yet

Sarah Palin Drives Aaron Sorkin Out Of His Ever-Loving Mind

Dec 09 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Maybe this is a little perverse — but I can’t help but admire Sarah Palin’s ability to drive liberals ABSOLUTELY INSANE just by living her life. Imagine if you will, being Sarah Palin. She goes hunting, like millions of other Americans do — like John Kerry did at least once, when he was running for President back in 2004 — and it drives liberals like Aaron Sorkin completely around the bend. Here’s some of what he wrote at the HuffPo about the episode of Sarah Palin’s Alaska where she shot a caribou and carved it up for meat with her family, “Unless you’ve never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation.” You’re right, Sarah, we’ll all just go f*ck ourselves now. …I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it’s hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don’t think it is, and here’s why. Like 95% of the people I know, I don’t have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don’t relish the idea of torturing animals. I don’t enjoy the fact that they’re dead and I certainly don’t want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn’t do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart. I’m able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don’t watch snuff films and you make them. You weren’t killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals. I can make the distinction between the two of us but I’ve tried and tried and for the life of me, I can’t make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I’m able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shi*heads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face. …And you didn’t just do it for fun and you didn’t just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there’d be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you’d be — bringing the right together with the far right. (Let me be the first to say that I abused cocaine and was arrested for it in April 2001. I want to be the first to say it so that when Palin’s Army of Arrogant @ssholes, bereft of any reasonable rebuttal, write it all over the internet tomorrow they will at best be the second.) Did he just write the line, “That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain”? I think he did. Ok, well….lol. Hold on, okay now….hahahahahahahaha! Continue reading at Right Wing News .

Read more:
Sarah Palin Drives Aaron Sorkin Out Of His Ever-Loving Mind

No responses yet

Hot Post: Steinem Off Her Meds: Sarah, Trig & the Secret Life of Self-Aborting Bears

Nov 27 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Originally published on November 22, 2010 Faux feminists are terrified. They’re so frightened of the Year of the Conservative Woman they’re trotting out Gloria Steinem , yesteryear’s poster-child for the womyn’s movement , to make the rounds in all the usual leftist places to “reclaim” the term “Mama Grizzlies.” (Did they ever own that term?) Steinem recently staked her reputation on her claim that grizzly bears heart abortion. The verdict is still out on whether or not grizzlies use #ihadanabortion tags on Twitter. Steinem opines in her article, Why Mama Grizzlies Vote Pro-Choice : In fact, Mama Grizzlies─so misrepresented for political purposes by Sarah Palin─know this, too. In real life, they are famous for their exercise of reproductive freedom. For example, female grizzlies mate later than other bears, have only one or two cubs at a time, and wait up to twice as many years between births. If after they are pregnant, conditions are not good─for instance, their health is poor, the food supply is unreliable, or the winter is too harsh─they reabsorb the embryo into their bodies in self-abortion and just don’t give birth that year. This idea of “self-abortion” is hilarious. Those of us who don’t spend all day drinking lattes and munching on organic wheat grass in leftist think-tanks have a word for that too. Miscarriage. It’s doubtful many women who have suffered one would ever consider it an abortion. The other amusing part of this interesting foray into the secret life of bears is the glaring flaw in Steinem’s use of the subject’s behavior. The fact that grizzly bears mate later, have small litters and take time off between pregnancies only illustrates bears are smarter than so-called feminists. Instead of having sex with every swanky hipster with a soul patch who smokes foreign cigarettes and reads Nietzsche, Mama Grizzlies wait to find the right mate. They don’t use condoms either. And I’m fairly certain grizzlies don’t bombard their young with detailed explanations of proper fellatio technique, but I’m no bear expert. Steinem also writes: [T]he Republican Party Platform calls for a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would create a direct relationship between the law and the fertilized egg, thus allowing women’s wombs to be legally searched… If Steinem is worried about women’s wombs being legally searched, she should move her campaign against government intrusion right over to the nearest airport! The pro-life movement has always been concerned with the rights of everyone involved in an abortion. What pro-abortionists always miss is that the world does not revolve around them and their desire to live an uncomplicated life free from the consequences of their bad choices. There is another person to consider. The one living inside the pregnant woman. We are beyond the argument that dividing cells is not a life. In Al Gore’s words, the debate is over (among people with functioning frontal lobes.) Any basic science class will teach you in every case dividing cells equals life. This is only debated by politically motivated liars when it comes to human cells, because they must make murder palatable by any deception necessary. Camille Paglia, well-known Second Wave feminist of the leftist persuasion has the intellectual honesty to admit what everyone already knows: abortion is “ the extermination of the powerless by the powerful .” Paglia supports abortion, but at least she does it from an honest viewpoint. Steinem rambles on: The truth is that next to air, water and food, the ability of a woman to decide when and whether to give birth is the most powerful and common determinant of whether she is healthy or not… Supporting women’s need to prevent or space pregnancies is also the most effective way of combating infant mortality, birth defects, the inability of children to bond and thrive, violent conflict over scarce resources, and irreversible damage to this fragile Space Ship Earth. All women have the ability to decide when and whether to give birth without abortion. It’s a matter of taking a lesson from the grizzly bear and waiting to engage in sex until you find the right mate and pregnancy is no longer a risk you don’t want to take. Steinem, and leftists like her, act as if women are animals, simple creatures of desire who can’t use the brains the faux feminists are so certain they have. Watching generations of young women take their tops off for free tee-shirts has kind of ruined that premise for me.

Read the original here:
Hot Post: Steinem Off Her Meds: Sarah, Trig & the Secret Life of Self-Aborting Bears

No responses yet

Older posts »