JournoList & Socialist Ties (Trevor Loudon-Part One)

Here is part of an article by Trevor Loudon entitled, “Socialist ‘JournoListas’.” It is a very imprtant aspect of the JournoList (JourNOlist) story:

The now closed down JournoList, has caused considerable controversy in recent weeks. According to its opponents, JournoList teamed up some 400 prominent “progressive” journalists in an effort to smooth Barack Obama’s path to the White House.

There have been accusations that “Journolitstas,” deliberately sought to downplay Obama’s association with the Marxist Rev. Jeremiah Wright and tried to smear conservatives or opposing journalists as “racists.”

This post looks at 106 reported “Journolistas” to look for connections or common threads.

Of the known “Jounolistas” and organizations listed below, many can be linked back to two interrelated groups Democratic Socialists of America, the U.S.’s largest Marxist-based organization and the D.S.A.’s “brain,” the Washington DC-based, far left “think tank,” the Institute for Policy Studies.

Between them, D.S.A. and the I.P.S. dominate or influence several organizations affiliated to JournoList, including:

Apart from the D.S.A./I.P.S. connections, leftist institutions like The New Republic and the New Century Foundation are well represented. There are two known connections to George SorosOpen Society Institute.

Many major newspapers are also represented, as is national public radio, CNN and a host of leading “progressive” blogs and websites and leftist media “watchdog” Media Matters.

…(read more)…

Anderson Cooper Apologizes? Bravo! (Update: Chris Matthews vs Howard Dean)


Chris Matthews is right, by the way (is Hell frozen over??), Shirley’s whole story of redemption was included in the original video. (see my video posted July 19th – its Breitbart’s release).



Also note that FoxNews didn’t talk about this story until the White House had already moved on it, which Chris Matthews points out. Anderson Cooper admitting?  Bravo.

On Thursday’s Anderson Cooper 360, anchor Anderson Cooper faulted himself for not pressing Shirley Sherrod when she appeared on the show back on July 22 and claimed that conservative Andrew Breitbart was a “vicious” racist who “would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery.”

Cooper now says he should have challenged Sherrod to support such an inflammatory charge with facts: “I believe in admitting my mistakes….I didn’t challenge her that night and I should have.”


COOPER: I interviewed Shirley Sherrod last Thursday. And in the course of that interview, I failed to do something that I should have. I believe in admitting my mistakes. I looked at the interview again today, and Ms. Sherrod said during that interview that she thought Mr. Breitbart was a racist. She said, quote, “I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery.” She went on to say she believed his opposition to President Obama was based on racism. Now, she, of course, is free to believe whatever she wants, but I didn’t challenge her that night and I should have.

I don’t want anyone on my show to get away with saying things which cannot be supported by facts. I should have challenged her on what facts she believes supports that accusation. That’s my job, and I didn’t do it very well in that interview, and I’m sorry about it. If I get a chance to talk to her again, I will.

…(read more)… Here is Dennis Prager on the issue:

Prager Discusses the Race Card and Howard Deans Use of It from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Open Letter To the Washington Post

This “JourNOlist” thing gets worse and worse as time progresses. Here is a portion of an open letter from Brent Bozell to the Washington Post:

The JournoList scandal is getting worse every day and The Washington Post is at the center of it. Blogger Ezra Klein ran the operation and at least three other staffers were members. (Blogger Greg Sargent claims he wasn’t a member after he joined the Post.) In addition, at least one member of Slate and two from Newsweek, also owned by Washingtonpost. Newsweek Interactive, were members.

The almost constant revelations of political activism and journalistic conspiracy raise an enormous number of questions about Post policies, professionalism and ethics. As a conservative, and therefore a member of the movement JournoListers sought to demonize, I feel Post readers are owed full disclosure.

Any understanding of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics makes clear this list and the Post’s involvement violate a number of ethical guidelines. In fact, much of the code seems to have been ignored. Here are just a few examples from the code.

Journalists should:

  • “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,”
  • “Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection,”
  • “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,”
  • “Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests [emphasis added] and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.”

…(the rest is worth reading)…

Charlie Rangel Charged -&- Charlie Rangel Admits Left Leaning Media Bias (a twofer)

Most Ethical Congress Eva!

Charlie Rangel — if you listen to the end — admits that liberal media bias exists! He is surprised (as am I) that MSNBC would ask such a question. When Rangel asked where he was from, I bet he was thinking the reporter was from FoxNews, only they would ask such a question!

An AP story on MSNBC:

A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, a blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and an election-year headache for Democrats.

The committee did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat, who has served in the House for some 40 years and is fourth in House seniority. The announcement by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial, where a separate eight-member panel of Republicans and Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

The timing of the announcement ensures that it will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had once promised to “drain the swamp” of ethical misdeeds by lawmakers in arguing that Democrats should be in charge.

Rangel led the tax-writing Ways and Means panel until he stepped aside last March after the ethics committee criticized him in a separate case — finding that he should have known corporate money was paying for his trips to two Caribbean conferences.

Climate Elitism

In a Washington Times story about Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming) they point to the heavy handed tactic (scientism) used by this large machine to push an agenda without science.

….In the current issue of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Law and Management, Australian researchers evaluated the community of so-called climate scientists and found them to be “antagonistic toward the disclosure of information.” Professor John Abbot of Central Queensland University, a chemist and lawyer, and biologist Jennifer Marohasy studied the response of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) and the Met OfficeBritain‘s national weather service – to various information requests. The most noteworthy of these was United Kingdom resident David Holland‘s demand for the raw data underlying the infamous “hockey stick” graph that was published in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports. This chart was the centerpiece of the claim that the 20th century was the hottest in a thousand years. The stir that Mr. Holland‘s request triggered among the scientists who worked on the report was captured in the Climategate e-mails.

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone,” CRU scientist Phil Jones wrote in a February 2005 e-mail. “We think we’ve found a way around this.” So much for transparency.

Under the British Freedom of Information law, like the similar U.S. statute, information created at the public expense must – with limited exceptions – be made available to the public that paid for it. At first, the Met Office answered Mr. Holland‘s request for data regarding a relatively uncontroversial chapter in the IPCC report. When he asked them for similar details regarding the hockey stick, the Met Office got around the law by claiming the data were “personal information” generated in the free time of the scientists involved. When this dodge failed to hold up, the Met Office began claiming that the records had been deleted.

“Of concern is evidence of a predisposition towards uncooperativeness on the part of the Met Office, which also used spurious claims of deleted correspondence and personal information in attempts to block the release of information,” Mr. Abbot and Ms. Marohasy wrote. The attitude isn’t limited to Britain. The Washington Times asked the White House Council on Environmental Quality for its oldest pending FOIA requests. Among the top five was an August 26 letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeking documents related to its work on climate-change legislation and the Environmental Protection Agency’s so-called greenhouse gas ruling.

None of these simple requests should have been denied or delayed. Many of those involved in purported climate science seem more preoccupied with advancing a leftist, anti-business legislative agenda than respecting the integrity of the scientific method. It’s obvious why. Their cataclysmic scare stories are unable to withstand scrutiny. By deleting e-mails and using tricks to hide the inconvenient decline in global temperatures, the climate alarmists prove to be not men of science, but ordinary frauds.

…(read more)…

Often times, this is the same attitude of elitism that Intelligent Design theorists deal with. We just see it in action imploding on itself… something that always happens when you elitise a way of thinking.

Editing of Film Makes Tea Partiers Seem Racist (Glenn Beck Debunks)


Think Progress also admits that they don’t even know if Murdough is a tea partier. But, he did mention “tea party” in the comment’s section of the July article and therefore, according to these radical hacks at Think Progress, that proves that the tea party is racist.

Got that? The tea party is racist because some white supremacist mentioned their name. Using this same logic, Obama is Al-Qaeda because he was mentioned in a Zawahiri tape. Hillary Clinton is part of the Taliban because they mentioned her in a tape.

This is insane and extremely dishonest. But, when you’ve got nothing and the unemployment rate is close to 10%, the record deficit is going over a trillion dollars, the country is broke and the president’s radical policies are unpopular across America, you make up lies to protect your radical associates.

What a disgusting dishonest website.

Facts Are Stubborn Things – Obama Inserted Berwick By Royal Decree

I thought this was supposed to be the most “transparent” Presidency. (I will post at the end what this story brings to mind.) In this video you will see this biased view explained here coming out from Bernard Whitman and also note Obama again inserting a czar in order to usurp proper protocol:

Dems Inaccurately Claim GOP Blocked Berwick Nomination, Media Happy to Play Along

The Times reported:

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said the “recess appointment” was needed to carry out the new health care law. The law calls for huge changes in the two programs, which together insure nearly one-third of all Americans.

Mr. Pfeiffer said the president would appoint Dr. Berwick on Wednesday. Mr. Obama decided to act because “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points,” Mr. Pfeiffer said.


The Daily News echoed:

Berwick supporters scoffed at GOP complaints and accused them of stonewalling.

“Republican lockstep stalling of Don’s nomination was a case study in cynicism and one awful example of how not to govern,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “Republicans screamed that these federal programs were in trouble, then tried to deny the Administration the capable guy the President had chosen to oversee them.”

The Globe printed Kerry’s statement, and noted that “Obama…blamed Republicans for forcing his hand.”

President Obama Attacks Congress for Delaying His Nominees — Is He Right?

President Obama said in a statement that “It’s unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes.”


Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., echoed the president’s suggestion, saying that “Republican lockstep stalling of Don’s nomination was a case study in cynicism and one awful example of how not to govern.”


But Republicans were not delaying or stalling Berwick’s nomination.

Indeed, they were eager for his hearing, hoping to assail Berwick’s past statements about health care rationing and his praise for the British health care system.

“The nomination hasn’t been held up by Republicans in Congress and to say otherwise is misleading,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which would have held Berwick’s hearing.

Grassley said that he “requested that a hearing take place two weeks ago, before this recess.”

Berwick’s nomination was sent to the Senate in April, and his hearing had not been scheduled because he was participating in the “standard vetting process,” a Democratic aide on the Senate Finance Committee told ABC News.

But speaking not for attribution, Democratic officials say that neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, were eager for an ugly confirmation fight four months before the midterm elections.


You can argue – and White House officials and Senate Democrats are, in fact, doing so – that Democrats were delaying Berwick’s hearing and the vote on his nomination because Republicans were going to play politics with it.

But a) that’s not the same as delaying or obstructing his nomination and b) some might argue that there’s also something to be said about combating policy arguments with better policy arguments.

This reminds me of all the times the Democrats said bush was cutting veteran benefits, when in fact he was increasing them. How? Because they would call for a 6-billion dollar increase in the proposal, but the Republicans and Bush would say their budget could only cover, say, 4-billion dollars. The net increase was 4-billion, but all you read in the papers and heard on MSNBC was that Bush cut 2-billion dollars in veteran benefits. Here is the comparison between Bush and Clinton in regards to veteran benefits, you tell me if the media was as mainstream as some purport?