Category: Politics
Fox Nation headline on Obama book draws fire
Written by Chad Phillips
Sunday, 05 December 2010 00:39
No Comments

Fox Nation totally stepped in it this week with the release of President Barack Obama's new book, Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters. Fox did a very short news story on the book and couldn't resist sensationalizing the headline to read: "Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General." You can read the full story on this over at Yahoo's news blog, Cutline.

Reporter, Michael Calderone, did a story on it over there, which raised my ire for a couple of reasons, not the least of which was Fox's editorial department showing their collective asses with regard to the headline for their story on Obama's book. Before dealing with Fox, however, I'd like to start my critique with Michael Calderone.

Got a question for Michael: Does he consider this piece he wrote to be news? Because the following quote taken from his piece certainly isn't:

"Several bloggers and Fox critics quickly jumped on the site's overheated reaction to the children's book."

While agree with Michael's opinion that the headline writer's reaction to the book was "overheated." his opinion AIN'T news. A long time ago there was a thing they used to teach in college and even in high school. It was called journalism. An article should be balanced and not contain even a scintilla of the reporter's opinion. It should be news, rather than an opinion piece which contains news…or in Michael's case, a news piece which contains his opinion. (NOTE: Do us all a favor and leave the opinion writing to the opinion writers, Michael.)

That said, Fox Nation further erodes its credibility every time it sensationalizes a news story with an idiotic headline. I mean, of all the dumb, moronic, stupid things to do. I expect this from the local newspaper, not from a media outlet the size of Fox, which boasts of its fair and balanced approach to the news. Good God you guys; all the guy did was write a book about great Americans and dedicate it to his daughters. He doesn't have enough problems right now with his presidency reduced to a stinking, oozing, writhing mass of sun baked rotting garbage? Seriously, who the hell is going to clean up that mess? And now this.

What's especially funny about Michael's story is all the Lefty nutroots coming out of the woodwork to condemn Fox. Funny, because I see this kind of shameless sensationalism every day from the Leftwing mainstream media outlets, and none of the moonbats who are crying foul over Fox's sins make so much as a peep. Their arrogance is only matched by their colossal hypocrisy. As long as the "offending" outlets are in their ideological camp, they can editorialize and sensationalize the news at will, and looney left is just fine with it. But the moment an organization or individual on the other side does it, these morons wanna play "gotcha." They're too arrogant to realize that they make themselves look foolish every time they do it. Still, I'm glad Michael Calderone pointed out Fox's wingnuttery, even thankful. Fox knows better. And maybe next time they'll think twice before joining the liberal media in their stupidity….or not.

 
The 2010 Election: Why the Left Still Doesn’t Get It
Written by Chad Phillips
Friday, 05 November 2010 00:58
No Comments

It's a strange phenomenon I'm witnessing in the aftermath of the 2010 election. I'm speaking of the way in which the most visible liberals have chosen to interpret the election results.

After their crushing defeat at the hands of the GOP, are liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama humbled? Are they the least bit remorseful for forcing their agenda on the American People? Do they believe that the casualties they experienced in this last election are, perhaps, the result of how they legislated over the past two years? The short answer is, "No." Don't believe me?

The day after the election, Nancy Pelosi said she had "'no regrets' about pursuing the Democrats' ambitious agenda." That's a remarkable statement. Her party just lost the House to the tune of 60+ seats. They also lost seats in the U.S. Senate and several governorships across the nation. All of that…directly related to her party's governance of this nation and she has "no regrets."  One question comes to mind in the wake of Pelosi's moronic statement: How ya likin' that Astroturf, now, Nancy?

And President Barack Obama? His response was equally mystifying. Speaking in reference to his health care bill, Obama had this to say, "I think we'd be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate arguments that we had over the last two years." Obama goes on to blame the outcome of this election not on his agenda or the way his cronies in Congress bullied that agenda into law, but rather on the economy and the fact that our recovery has yet to materialize. This is coming from the guy who campaigned on a singular promise, that he would bring economic prosperity.

The sane among us, understand the abject imbecility of Obama and Pelosi's statements. It's obvious that in both cases, we're dealing with people who are living in a fantasy world of their own making. But what does one do with such nuttery?  How can one combat this kind of, apparent thickheadedness? You have to wonder what it would take to convince these jackasses that their legislative decisions are directly responsible for the bloodbath they took last Tuesday. This is more proof that neoliberals have a completely inaccurate concept of cause and effect, leading to a warped perception of reality.  The assumption by these poor misguided fools is that neoliberalism works. And since it works, the problem can't be with them. Therefore, it must necessarily be elsewhere. This explains how liberals, the likes of Obama and Pelosi, can be in utter denial about their own failure…even in the face of compelling data, like the shellacking they got earlier this week.

 
Imam Feisel’s indecent proposal: the Ground Zero Mosque
Written by Chad Phillips
Tuesday, 24 August 2010 00:09
2 Comments

Unless you live in a cave (and are not a terrorist) you already have heard about what has come to be called the Ground Zero Mosque. If you don't know what the flap is about, click the previous embedded link and read the article before continuing further.

I have refrained from commenting about the issue, here, until now, mostly because new information kept coming to light and I wanted to give this thing a balanced treatment.  In general, I think most folks are quite confused about the mosque on both sides of the debate.

For example I keep hearing conservatives saying that that the Cordoba Initiative has no legal right to build this mosque in the proposed location. I've also heard liberals parroting the mantra of the imam (Feisel Abdul Rauf) who is behind this proposed structure, in saying that the building "is not a mosque; this is a cultural center."

So what's the big deal? Does Rauf have a legal right to renovate this structure so close to Ground Zero? Is it really just a community center and nothing more? Let's start with the legal challenges.

First, contrary to popular belief, Rauf and his organization have every right to build a mosque here. They're on solid footing with the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the freedom to practice their religion and they're on fertile ground from a real estate and property law point of view. So conservatives, please stop spewing the completely inaccurate blather that these Muslims and their organization have no legal right to build (or renovate) a structure at or near Ground Zero. They do. Kindly, get your facts straight or shut your pieholes…please.

Second, concerning the claim that this structure won't be a mosque: Rauf and his liberal allies get around the whole mosque problem by continually mouthing the words, cultural+community+center and not elaborating on the fact that this building will contain a mosque. Technically, the entire structure won't be a mosque, sure. But a mosque will be there and I highly doubt you'll see any Jews or Christians in there holding worship services. So from a certain point of view (the technical point of view) Rauf and his liberal allies are telling the truth when they say the structure won't be a mosque…technically. It all depends on your frame of reference…or rather, how you word things.

But here's another item which makes no sense: If there's no mosque, then why hide behind the Bill of Rights, Imam Feisel? If there's no mosque, then Muslim's won't be practicing their religion on the site will they? And if that's the case, then there's no infringement on the right to practice one's religion…so the whole freedom of religion thing isn't even applicable. After all, it's not a mosque; it's a "cultural center." (wink, wink…nod, nod)

That said, it has been stated that the "center" is meant to help foster an environment of peace, healing, interfaith relations, and better understanding between Muslims and the West, that it will exist to serve the community at large, meaning both Muslims and non-Muslims. If that's true, then why doesn't Rauf's proposal for this center include, a church, a Jewish synagogue, and perhaps, offices for the Council for Secular Humanism?

Moreover, if you were trying to reach out to Americans and show them that Islam is really about peace and fostering better understanding, why would you bend over backwards to bloody the noses of so many people in the process? Think about it; 70 percent of the country is against his proposal to put a mosque…(ahem) I mean "cultural center" on the GZ site and a majority of New Yorkers are against it as well. Yet, he is insisting on it. He is demanding it, in spite of the pain and outrage Americans are feeling at his proposal to build this thing so close to GZ.

Whatever Rauf's intentions with this structure, there's one thing we can be sure of: This isn't a matter of religious freedom. He could put this mosque anywhere he pleases (and he is doing just that). Rather, the issue is should he put it in the proposed location, given the circumstances? You see, it's a matter of propriety, of decency, of good manners. Just because some person, corporate or organizational entity has the right to do something, doesn't mean they should. The legality of a proposition isn't directly proportional to the morality of a proposition. I refuse to believe that a man as intelligent as Rauf doesn't understand this concept. And knowing this, what is Rauf's response?  Why, to move ahead with his indecent proposal, of course, and to refuse any discussion of other alternatives. And while from a legal standpoint I have no problem with his proposal, I find it troubling and offensive in the extreme that  Rauf and his organization could be so callous and insensitive to the ramifications of putting a new mosque on this site. I also find it insulting that he would actually claim to be trying to foster an environment of reconciliation, when his actions are doing just the opposite. I fail to see how driving a stake through the heart of this nation will help Rauf to achieve his stated goals. Instead, it will serve to inflame and further alienate the very people he claims he wants to reach out to. The whole damned excursion just smells bad. It smacks of duplicity and I don't buy it.