If Cops Didn’t Already Despise MSNBC, They Will After This Disgusting Move

The content of a recent post published to MSNBC’s Twitter page caused serious backlash from the public–even long after the cable news network deleted the text and accompanying video.

“Does it count as a police chase if you drag the cop along for the ride?” the post wondered.

Just below, a video depicted a black suspect driving away from a traffic stop with the officer being dragged behind the car. Adding insult to injury, the video used what some described as “comical music” as a soundtrack to the potentially deadly incident.

As anti-police sentiment remains high in cities across the U.S., many critics deemed the post irresponsible and inappropriate for a news outlet – even one as objectively biased as MSNBC.

The video and post have since been removed; however, the backlash remains as several sources secured a screenshot of the offending post. A subsequent apology calling the deleted content “inappropriate” was not enough to appease opponents.

Several referred to the apology as insufficient, with one asserting that the network’s “hatred of law enforcement is loud and clear.”

One Twitter user, though undeniably critical of the network’s decision to post the video, wondered if a retraction was needed.

“Why pull the tweet?” the user wondered. “It’s not like anyone follows them & those who do totally agree with this type of tasteless rhetoric.”

Libertarian author Wayne Allyn Root joined in the denunciation by referring to MSNBC as a group of “disgusting, revolting, filthy cop haters” who should be taken off of the air.

“Enough,” he wrote. “Boycott all MSNBC advertisers.”

Was it inappropriate for a cable news network to share such material? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

MSNBC Host Rips Obama Over Recent Fox News Channel Jab

Referencing Barack Obama’s remarks at a recent forum aimed at addressing poverty, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough took exception to the president’s public indictment of a rival cable news network.

Obama stated that Fox News Channel offers a “constant menu” of programming demonizing the poor as lazy “sponges” and “leeches.”

Scarborough eviscerated Obama not only for his comments, but for the forum in which he decided to make them.

“At a bipartisan summit, you decide to attack a cable news channel as the problem,” he said, “saying that [FNC President] Roger Ailes calls people leeches, and Roger Ailes’ network calls people leeches, sponges, and lazy. That, first of all, at a summit that’s supposed to bring both sides together on poverty, is stunning to me.”

Scarborough also referenced Obama’s stated desire to change the way the cable news leader reports as a method of changing the way Republican leaders in Congress vote.

“Is he really the sole arbiter of what is right and just?” the Morning Joe host asked. “Could it be that a lot of people like me don’t think that a top-down approach and trickle-down liberalism works any more than trickle-down conservatism?”

Political disagreements have been a constant presence in America since George Washington’s presidency, Scarborough asserted, and Barack Obama’s attempt to silence dissent is a telling characteristic.

“It’s not ‘I’m right, you’re wrong,’” he concluded. “That is such an illuminating moment in this presidency. I’m a little embarrassed for him.”

Is Obama’s consistent criticism of Fox News inappropriate? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Why Libs Should Be Petrified By This Top Dem Strategist And MSNBC Fave’s Take On Brit Elections

As Western Journalism reported earlier today, Friday, British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Party absolutely crushed their rivals on the left in the just-concluded national elections that saw the liberal Labour Party in the United Kingdom lose some two dozen seats in Parliament. And which former Obama strategist was a highly paid consultant to Labour candidates? Which big-time MSNBC political analyst had only days before the humiliating defeat suffered by his British clients predicted a “very, very close race?”

Why, that now thoroughly discredited pundit was none other than David Axelrod, who NewsBusters says collected the tidy sum of $463,000 for his advice that saw Labour Party leaders go down in flames. NewsBusters reports that, following the trouncing his clients took, Axelrod tried to shift the blame away from his advice about how to run their leftist campaigns.

“On Twitter, Friday, Axelrod blamed others: ‘In all my years as journalist & strategist, I’ve never seen as stark a failure of polling as in UK. Huge project ahead to unravel that.’”

Clearly, though, it wasn’t polling that led to the defeat of the candidates who followed Axelrod’s lead in choosing the campaign positions they would embrace — positions that British voters overwhelmingly rejected. Only yesterday, the day Britons went to the polls, Axelrod went on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show to, essentially, declare victory for the Labour Party as well as to tout the supposed superiority of the political advice he gave the party’s candidates.

NewsBusters provides a partial transcript of that interview, which has now proven to be rather unfortunate for Mr. Axelrod and opinions about his competence in both advising about, and predicting the results of, today’s political contests.

…some of the same issues, Andrea, we’re dealing with here, that in the advanced economies, how do you create economies in which people that work hard get ahead, stay ahead of bills, have some hope for kids and their future… One thing seems clear is that there’s going to be a progressive majority in Britain after this election. Unless there’s a huge surprise today, it’s really hard to see how David Cameron puts together, puts together a majority coalition.

The real significance of David Axelrod’s utter failure here runs far beyond the Conservative Party’s landslide in the United Kingdom. It’s what Axelrod’s advice and insight — or lack thereof — could mean for the 2016 election cycle in the United States. That point is driven home with a vengeance by a recent post on the website of NBC News — a piece that, ironically, underscores the potential weakness of traditional Democrat talking points and what many might call “threadbare” campaign platitudes.

The opening sentences of the NBC News post are particularly revealing: “President Barack Obama’s former adviser David Axelrod has some advice for 2016 presidential hopefuls: Pay heed to politicians across the pond. The strategist, who has been advising the U.K.’s main opposition Labour Party ahead of Thursday’s election, said Americans contenders should draw lessons from Britain’s general election by putting household economics at the heart of their campaign.”

By clicking on the video below, you can watch the celebrated guru of liberal election victory lay out his philosophy that, if adopted by Democrats in 2016, could lead to the same kind of wipeout that the Labour Party just suffered across the pond.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Why Libs Should Be Petrified By This Top Dem Strategist And MSNBC Fave’s Take On Brit Elections

As Western Journalism reported earlier today, Friday, British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Party absolutely crushed their rivals on the left in the just-concluded national elections that saw the liberal Labour Party in the United Kingdom lose some two dozen seats in Parliament. And which former Obama strategist was a highly paid consultant to Labour candidates? Which big-time MSNBC political analyst had only days before the humiliating defeat suffered by his British clients predicted a “very, very close race?”

Why, that now thoroughly discredited pundit was none other than David Axelrod, who NewsBusters says collected the tidy sum of $463,000 for his advice that saw Labour Party leaders go down in flames. NewsBusters reports that, following the trouncing his clients took, Axelrod tried to shift the blame away from his advice about how to run their leftist campaigns.

“On Twitter, Friday, Axelrod blamed others: ‘In all my years as journalist & strategist, I’ve never seen as stark a failure of polling as in UK. Huge project ahead to unravel that.’”

Clearly, though, it wasn’t polling that led to the defeat of the candidates who followed Axelrod’s lead in choosing the campaign positions they would embrace — positions that British voters overwhelmingly rejected. Only yesterday, the day Britons went to the polls, Axelrod went on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show to, essentially, declare victory for the Labour Party as well as to tout the supposed superiority of the political advice he gave the party’s candidates.

NewsBusters provides a partial transcript of that interview, which has now proven to be rather unfortunate for Mr. Axelrod and opinions about his competence in both advising about, and predicting the results of, today’s political contests.

…some of the same issues, Andrea, we’re dealing with here, that in the advanced economies, how do you create economies in which people that work hard get ahead, stay ahead of bills, have some hope for kids and their future… One thing seems clear is that there’s going to be a progressive majority in Britain after this election. Unless there’s a huge surprise today, it’s really hard to see how David Cameron puts together, puts together a majority coalition.

The real significance of David Axelrod’s utter failure here runs far beyond the Conservative Party’s landslide in the United Kingdom. It’s what Axelrod’s advice and insight — or lack thereof — could mean for the 2016 election cycle in the United States. That point is driven home with a vengeance by a recent post on the website of NBC News — a piece that, ironically, underscores the potential weakness of traditional Democrat talking points and what many might call “threadbare” campaign platitudes.

The opening sentences of the NBC News post are particularly revealing: “President Barack Obama’s former adviser David Axelrod has some advice for 2016 presidential hopefuls: Pay heed to politicians across the pond. The strategist, who has been advising the U.K.’s main opposition Labour Party ahead of Thursday’s election, said Americans contenders should draw lessons from Britain’s general election by putting household economics at the heart of their campaign.”

By clicking on the video below, you can watch the celebrated guru of liberal election victory lay out his philosophy that, if adopted by Democrats in 2016, could lead to the same kind of wipeout that the Labour Party just suffered across the pond.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

MSNBC Hosts Skewer Howard Dean For His Defense Of Clintons

Amid a growing scandal suggesting the Clinton Foundation improperly accepted donations in exchange for political favors, 2016 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill, can at least count on Howard Dean for support. The former Democrat National Committee chairman and one-time presidential candidate appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this week to criticize the author of a new book that promises to expose the Clintons’ actions.

Dean suggested author Peter Schweizer could not be trusted because he “is getting money from donors – big donors who support Ted Cruz.”

“You’re going after the author?” host Joe Scarborough asked.

He continued, noting that plenty of other news outlets are following up on the issues presented in the book, asserting that Dean must similarly criticize these sources – specifically the New York Times, which published an article that promoted the story to nationwide prominence.

“You’re actually going to have to condemn the New York Times, Joe Becker and Mike McIntyre,” Scarborough insisted. “They’re the ones that wrote the story.”

Dean accepted the challenge and went on to rip the Times as an outlet with numerous “incredibly sloppy” journalists on its staff.

“I have been threatened by reporters,” he asserted. “They were going to run a story that they knew wasn’t true and I knew wasn’t true unless I produced evidence to prove it wasn’t true.”

Scarborough cut Dean off, comparing him to previous guest James Carville, who consistently attempted to change the focus of the conversation.

“It’s always ‘look at something else,’” he lamented.

The host also coaxed Dean into admitting that he has no criticism of the authors behind the Times article being discussed.

Do you think the accusations against the Clintons are credible? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth