Top Liberal Meltdowns Of 2014

bestofrants

Whether made by politicians, cable news commentators, or civil rights activists, there was no shortage of controversial remarks and full-blown rants captured on video this year. Western Journalism compiled some of the more memorable moments of leftist punditry from 2014.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Megyn Kelly Interviews Man Who Helped Develop CIA Interrogation Techniques

kellyinterrogation

Fox News’ Megyn Kelly got a big interview this week following the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogations in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on America on September 11, 2001. It was compelling TV, and journalism. Dr. James Mitchell, a former Air Force psychologist, contracted with the CIA to help develop a program to interrogate CIA detainees while America, and those tasked to protect this country, prepared for a second wave of attacks.

Mitchell had spoken with the British newspaper, The Guardian, back in April, after an executive summary of the Senate Intelligence report had been leaked to McClatchy News. At the time, as reported by The Guardian, Mitchell “mounted a full-throated defense of the Bush administration’s counter-terrorism policies and attacked ‘partisan Democrats’ for ‘throwing me under the bus’ and ‘rewriting history.’” Now he clearly feels even more free to speak out.

Mitchell was never interviewed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) committee. In fact, none of the CIA people involved in the interrogations, nor the directors or deputy directors, were interviewed. In other words, the purpose of this report was not to actually get to the truth of what happened. It was an attempt, for various political and PR reasons, to accuse and indict the Bush administration and the CIA for allegedly using torture on the detainees.

Mitchell revealed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) didn’t break, or provide information that eventually led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, because of waterboarding, but rather because of other EITs (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques). The technique that did work on KSM, according to the American Enterprise Institute’s Marc Thiessen, a former George W. Bush speechwriter, was sleep deprivation. But Mitchell revealed something that KSM did tell him:

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told me personally, ‘Your country will turn on you, the liberal media will turn on you, the people will grow tired of this, they will turn on you, and when they do, you are going to be abandoned.’”

What comes through in Megyn Kelly’s interview is a thoughtful, patriotic American who was moved by the image of Americans leaping out of World Trade Center buildings, and by the courage of those on Flight 93 who helped bring the plane down, rather than allow it to successfully strike the third of three targets of the “decapitation” that Mitchell said was their goal. The terrorists hit our financial center in New York, they hit the Pentagon—the headquarters of the U.S. military—and the third plane was intended to crash into the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

America is divided over this, but a recent Washington Post – ABC poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly think that “the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists” was justified, by a margin of 59% to 31%. Clearly a significant majority believe the CIA was trying to protect this country at that time, and aren’t too worried about the few cases of excess—even death—that occurred. They don’t see it as a “stain” on our country. In fact, many view the stain as this one-sided report that cherry-picked information and revealed selective portions of emails, contradicted by other portions not revealed in the report—if that’s what they needed to make their case. Many believe that the release of this report has given aid and comfort to America’s enemies, and put American lives at increased risk.

It turns out that KSM was right about the “liberal media,” but it seems that a significant majority of the American people are quite okay with what was done to these terrorists—and other detainees—and don’t believe it damaged us as a country. Many of those in the liberal media—such as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, Jane Mayer of the New Yorker (who actually interviewed Dr. Mitchell back in 2005), and Erin Burnett of CNN—freely call what happened “torture.” To them, it’s not an opinion, it’s a fact.

Kudos to Megyn Kelly for getting the interview, which aired in two parts on Monday and Tuesday nights this week. I urge you to watch for yourself, and to also read this column, “The Feinstein Report is Going to Cost Us,” by Andrew McCarthy. He was the lawyer who successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, the man responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. McCarthy has a lot of interesting things to say about the report, such as this:

“As I have frequently argued here over the years, there is a world of difference between what is couched in political rhetoric as ‘torture,’ a conversation stopper that the Left cavalierly applies to every instance of prisoner abuse, and the federal crime of torture, which has a strict legal definition and is a difficult offense to prove, precisely to ensure that torture is not trivialized.”

You can watch Kelly’s interview with Dr. Mitchell here.

 

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

News Anchor Reveals Shocking Examples Of Media Covering For Obama

obama

Journalists of all stripes have long complained about the current administration’s lack of openness in dealing with the media despite claims that it is the “most transparent” in history.

While plenty of reporters lament their limited access to unbiased information, however, Fox News correspondent Monica Crowley revealed that many of her colleagues are more than happy using their influence to shill for Barack Obama.

Crowley penned a recent editorial for the Washington Times in which she recalled a conversation with one broadcast network reporter who revealed the sycophantic inner workings of her newsroom.

The unidentified woman described herself as a conservative, Crowley wrote, though she explained that she has never revealed that information for fear of losing her job. The veteran newswoman said that, while her industry has long leaned to the left, reporters have taken an even more partisan tone in dealing with the current White House.

“Every morning,” she told Crowley, “we hold a meeting about how to build that evening’s broadcast. We’ve been doing this for decades.”

Those meeting have always had an “unspoken” liberal undertone, she noted; however, the 2008 presidential election cycle showed a specific bias toward Obama.

“Once Obama pulled ahead of Hillary and certainly once he became president, the bias came out of the closet,” the source told Crowley. “Now, every morning when we meet to discuss that night’s show, they literally say – out loud – ‘How do we protect Barack Obama today?’”

This anecdote is hardly the only evidence suggesting newsrooms actively work on Obama’s behalf instead of fulfilling a commitment to impartiality. Crowley shared a conversation with another fellow journalist, Fox Business’ Melilssa Francis, who recalled a similar pressure to carry water for the administration.

When Francis reported inaccuracies surrounding the math behind Obamacare during her time at CNBC, she said executives raked her over the coals for “disrespecting the office of the president.”

Former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has also made news in recent months for her assertion that she was forced out of her job due in large part to her criticism of the Obama administration.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

For Progressives, The “Narrative” Is More Important Than The Truth

progressives4

The “progressives” are at it again. This week’s scandal is the broken-glass-gang-rape-that-apparently-wasn’t at the University of Virginia. Initially published with all the indignation that Rolling Stone and its reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, could muster, the magazine has now backpedalled and apologized for its appalling breaches of journalistic protocol.

Referring to it as “this week’s scandal” is no mere rhetorical flourish. Instances of left-wing journalists, pundits, media personalities, and policymakers making up stories out of whole cloth are flying thick and fast these days. Feminists’ darling du jour Lena Dunham is under fire for the allegations of rape she made in her latest book, “Not That Kind of Girl,” against a fellow former Oberlin student identified only as a “campus Republican” named “Barry.” “Barry” has retained an attorney and demanded a retraction. After a long and conspicuous silence, Dunham’s publisher, Random House, has agreed to pay “Barry’s” legal fees — if he’ll donate the money to a rape crisis charity of his choice. At this writing, “Barry,” continuing to maintain his innocence, has refused the offer.

Just last month, “Grubered” was added to the popular lexicon when MIT professor and Obamacare guru Jonathan Gruber admitted no fewer than seven times (on camera, anyway) that the law’s drafters had deliberately lied about key aspects of the legislation. To add insult — literally — to injury, Gruber credited the law’s passage to American voters’ “stupidity.”

And then there is Ferguson, Missouri, shooting victim Michael Brown. Despite evidence from multiple witnesses that Brown was assaulting the police officer who shot him, the meme that has taken hold depicts Brown yelling, “Don’t shoot!” with his hands up.

This isn’t a recent phenomenon, and it’s no accident. Progressives thrive on creating stories that are nothing more than prog-paganda — “cases” that justify their political agenda. Deliberate falsehoods are created to whip the public into a fervor for some initiative. By the time the lie is exposed, it’s too late.

NARAL founder and former abortionist-turned-pro-life activist Dr. Bernard Nathanson admitted that the oft-quoted figure of 10,000 women dying from botched abortions every year was a complete fabrication, used to drum up support for abortion on demand.

Twenty-two years ago, Guatamalan peasant activist Rigoberta Menchu received the Nobel Peace Prize for her autobiography, “I, Rigoberta Menchu.” But when an admiring scholar followed up on the facts alleged in her book, he discovered that significant parts of the most compelling accounts were utter fiction. In what has become the standard prog-paganda line, the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, “(I)t doesn’t matter if the facts in the book are wrong, because … Ms. Menchu’s story speaks to a greater truth about the oppression of poor people in Central America.”

You see? It’s not the facts that matter; it’s the larger narrative. And virtually every cause the left cares about has been transformed into a Blob-like “larger narrative” that survives by consuming inconvenient facts to the contrary:

It doesn’t matter that the science shows no global warming over the past 15 years. What matters is the larger narrative about human exploitation of the planet’s natural resources.

It doesn’t matter that the young men at Duke did not rape exotic dancer Crystal Mangum. What matters is the larger narrative of white privilege and the athletic culture at Duke.

It doesn’t matter that Matthew Shepard’s brutal beating and death were likely a drug deal gone bad — and at the hands of a former male lover. What matters is the larger narrative about homophobia.

It doesn’t matter that most men don’t rape, or that (contrary to popular belief) 1 in 5 women aren’t actually sexually assaulted on college campuses. What matters is the larger narrative about male patriarchy.

In short, for progressives, truth takes a back seat to a political agenda, even — no, especially — when the truth reveals that their political agenda is empty, specious, corrupt, and unjustified. Most disturbingly, the media — charged with the responsibility of finding and exposing the truth — plays along.

And they wonder why Americans no longer trust the press?

 

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Fox News Is Siding With The Liberals On This One

15763703459_c8d41e02d9_k

The grand jury in the Eric Garner case heard nine weeks’ of evidence before declining to indict the police officer. Many in the media didn’t wait nine minutes before finding the officer guilty of a crime. This rush to judgment was evident across the political spectrum, in the liberal and conservative media.

With “sit-ins, die-ins, and blockades” making news around the country against “police violence,” it apparently has become tempting for some conservatives to take the side of the black criminal and look stylish. They must figure this is a way of getting accolades from the liberals.

But here are the facts about the grand jury, as disclosed by Stephen J. Rooney, a justice on the Richmond County Supreme Court in New York:

  • In addition to sitting for nine weeks, it heard from a total 50 witnesses. Twenty-two of the witnesses were civilians, while the remaining witnesses were police officers, emergency medical personnel, and doctors.
  • Sixty exhibits were admitted into evidence, including four videos, records regarding the New York Police Department (NYPD) policies and procedures, medical records pertaining to the treatment of the deceased, photographs of the scene, autopsy photographs, and records pertaining to NYPD training.
  • The grand jury was instructed on relevant principles of law, including Penal Law § 35.30 regarding a police officer’s use of physical force in making an arrest.

The grand jury is one of our most precious institutions of self-governance. It is designed to screen criminal indictments before people are charged.

It’s true that the commentators did not have access to all of this evidence. But they could have taken some time to review the video from a police officer’s point of view, and to review police procedures. Instead, conservatives in the media jumped to conclusions, showing how the narrative of the liberal media was already dominating their thinking.

Interestingly, however, former NBA basketball star Charles Barkley had it right even before the grand jury decision was handed down. He watched the video and told CNN, “…when the cops are trying to arrest you, if you fight back, things go wrong. I don’t think they were trying to kill Mr. Garner. He was a big man and they tried to get him down.”

For some reason, our prominent white conservatives couldn’t see the case as clearly as this black man.

Fox News commentators took sides against the police officer. Andrew Napolitano, the Fox News judicial analyst, said, “This ought to have been an indictment and it ought to have been an indictment for some form of manslaughter. It’s not first degree murder. It’s not second degree murder. But it’s certainly reckless manslaughter.” Napolitano is a judge who should know better. He knows—or should know—that the grand jury looked at all of the evidence, including the fact that the supervising police officer on the scene was black.

One of the most ridiculous critiques of the outcome was offered by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sean Hannity of Fox News. They implied that Garner was being arrested for not paying taxes on cigarettes. He was selling untaxed cigarettes, but that was not the main reason he got into trouble. In fact, shop owners called the police for help in getting him out of the neighborhood. He had been committing crimes since the age of 16.

Selling untaxed cigarettes sounds like a petty crime. But anyone who reviews the evidence knows that crime rates have been going down in New York City precisely because the police have been enforcing the law at all levels, from petty crimes on up to murder. The police are not supposed to decide which laws to enforce; they are supposed to enforce the law, period.

We are accustomed to an anti-police bias from the liberals. But Glenn Beck said, “How this cop did not go to jail and was not held responsible is beyond me.” Perhaps he should have taken some time to look at the video more closely. On first glance, it does look shocking. But it’s not true that the “chokehold” was in fact a “chokehold.” Officer Daniel Pantaleo used a headlock, which is a textbook takedown maneuver. Garner had a series of health problems contributing to the unfortunate outcome. Second, even the video shows Garner resisting arrest, saying “It stops today.” Third, it is clear the officer asked for back-up and didn’t immediately take down the suspect. Garner was given every opportunity to be arrested and taken into custody peacefully.

Radio host Michael Savage was the worst offender, in terms of taking sides against the police. He called the police officers “jackals” and “cowards,” and falsely called Garner’s death “the chokehold murder of an innocent black man.” On his radio show on Thursday, he said, “Tell me what happened when the guy is saying he can’t breathe? Did they pull back? Did the jackals pull back? Did the big cop Daniel Pantaleo with the big muscular tattooed arms…release his chokehold?”

Again, it wasn’t a chokehold. What’s more, criminals always complain about police brutality, alleging broken arms or legs, or not being able to breathe, when they are resisting arrest. He clearly could breathe since he was griping about his treatment. A real chokehold would have prevented him from saying anything.

Charles Krauthammer said, “From looking at the video, the grand jury’s decision here is totally incomprehensible. It looks as if at least they might have indicted him on something like involuntary manslaughter at the very least.” But the video has to be interpreted from the point of view of police procedures and the law. That’s what the grand jury did.

Megyn Kelly of Fox News, who is a lawyer, said about the case, “It was a slap on the wrist kind of crime, for which he effectively received the death penalty…” The term “death penalty” implies a deliberate effort to take his life.

Don’t these conservative commentators realize they are inflaming an already tense situation and making things worse? They are accusing the police of serious crimes and putting the lives of officers in danger as a result.

Whatever happened to the Fox News Channel that was supposed to be a counter to the liberal diatribes we usually get from MSNBC?

Those of us who have been fighting liberal media bias for decades are extremely disappointed with the conduct of the conservative media we have worked so many years to support. This alternative source of news and information is supposed to help us make informed decisions about issues of national and international importance. Instead, we are being treated to conservative back-up for liberal opinions designed to make police into villains and bad guys.

This is just what President Obama and the “progressives” are counting on, as they proceed to put local police under federal jurisdiction, monitoring, and control. Six years after Obama was first elected, it is apparent that our leading light conservative commentators still don’t understand how the “progressive” agenda is moving forward—now with their support.

 

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

Photo Credit: Mike Mozart (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom