Trust in the media is at an all-time low. But should it be? Why do fewer and fewer Americans trust the mainstream media. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, author of The Smear, explains.
BTW, that first Tweet (above) of his is easily disproved, here are a few places to go:
- No Evidence Sarah Palin’S Pac Incited Shooting Of Rep. Gabby Giffords (POLITIFACT)
According to news reports, Loughner became fixated on Giffords several years before his Jan. 8, 2011, shooting rampage that killed six and injured 14, including the Arizona congresswoman…. According to the Washington Post, there is no evidence Loughner was aware of Palin’s maps. And according to an interview with one of Loughner’s high school friends, the gunman did not watch the news. His rampage was akin to “shooting at the world,” said Loughner’s friend Zach Osler.
- 56% of Democrats Believe Palin Map Myth (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
Despite the facts which have come out showing that Jared Loughner was not a political person and was motivated by his own delusions rather than politics…. Remember, there is not a shred of evidence that Jared Loughner ever saw the map. As discussed here numerous times, the connection of the map to the shooting was a complete fiction concocted moments after the shooting by certain left-wing bloggers who spread the connection into the mainstream media.
- The New York Times Runs The Worst Editorial In Human History, Blames SARAH PALIN For Giffords Shooting AGAIN (DAILY WIRE)
Jared Lee Loughner wasn’t a conservative. He wasn’t a Republican. He wasn’t sane. There is no evidence whatsoever that he ever saw the infamous Palin targeted district map. None. The rumor was discredited within hours of the shooting. But six years later, The Times is still repeating the lie as true — and not just as true, but as the ultimate example of political rhetoric prompting violence.
- Vice published a story yesterday titled “Extremism experts are starting to worry about the left.” My reaction: It’s about damn time. (HOT AIR)
Here is his information and self aggrandizement:
David French over at the NATIONAL REVIEW has an excellent article on this topic, and is the one Prager is reading from:
What was unbelievable is that the NEW YORK TIMES tried to connect this to Gabby Gifford’s in some comparative manner!
Via The Blaze!
I wanted to play the video in whole, then go through 6-points it makes to shed more light on them.
(I recently added to this next section)
Prince EA’s mentioning that a future generation of people will not know what trees are is JUST LIKE people telling us kids will not know what snow is like:
Funny thing is, some record breaking snow-fall followed in the years after… so much so that kids wished they forgot what it was.
But in all seriousness we are seeing similar dire predictions fail about the deforestation of trees. Keep in mind this is not a polemic proving all stories of deforestation false. I merely wish to bring some balance to the issue. For instance, in the Amazon, well over 95% of deforestation comes from cattle ranching, commercial agriculture, and infrastructure improvements. Less than 5% is from legal and illegal logging. Take note as well that The New York Times makes the point that,
- “…for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.”
I love balance.
William Shatner, Captain Kirk of Star Trek fame, mentioned in a National Geographic video that, “rainforests [are] being cleared at the rate of 20 football fields per minute.” If this were truly the case, the forests would have been completely wiped out years ago. In Prince EA’s video he said 40 football fields! In an interview with Dr. Evaristo Eduardo de Miranda (one of the world’s leading experts on deforestation in the Amazon, is a professor of ecology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest institution of higher learning, and president of ECOFORCE, a private, nonprofit, environmental research/educational institution), he was asked where these numbers come from:
One comment from the inter-webs noted: “The Amazon is just fine, as the people are moving out of the jungle to the cities and the jungle is raging back quite nicely. It’s in Indonesia and the area that the forests are being cut down for palm oil/biofuel productions.” Yep
In fact, the co-founder and long-time director of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, said: “All these save-the-forests arguments are based on bad science…. They are quite simply wrong… [Phillip Stott and I] found that the Amazon rainforests is more than 90% intact. We flew over it and met all the environmental authorities. We studied satellite pictures of the entire area.” Phillip Stott, who has 30 years of studying tropical forests under his belt as well as being professor of biogeography at London University mentioned that, “there are now still – despite what humans have done – more rainforests today than there were 12,000 years ago.”
Conventional wisdom is often challenged as well by climatologists and specialists in their field. The NEW YORK TIMES passes along the complexity of an issue most people take for granted:
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN gets a bit more detailed regarding the above. But this is a very complicated issue… especially since chopping down massive forests is being posited as a boon to fight “global warming” – to wit:
Like I said – challenging conventional wisdom. In reality, what throws many of these studies of deforestation off is the urban heat island effect and rural cold island effect. For more on this see Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy’s (bio) book/chapter: “Climate Change: Myths & Realities”, 2008 — Chapter 7: Ecological changes.
The second point I wish to comment on, and it is Prince EA’s mentioning of the Native-Americans. I do not doubt that Prince was taught these things in school. However, like many other issues cornered in the monopoly of the government, balance is needed.
For instance, I wrote a response to an in-class supplement to my sons elementary class lesson [he is now married and lives in Florida] about HOW the Settlers treated the New World versus how the Indians treated it. I made sure each parent got a copy and this engendered a visit to see the principle. Here is a quote from that post:
These little historical facts changes the narrative just a tad, doesn’t it? Like when the Iroquois directed their most furious attacks against the Hurons during the Beaver Wars. One Jesuit missionary wrote, “it is the design of the Iroquois to capture all the Hurons, if it is possible; to put the chiefs and great part of the nation to death, and with the rest to form one nation and one country.” American Indians, alongside the Settlers, accelerated their hunting of the American Bison (Buffalo) that contributed to the near extinction of this plains beast. All in the name of the Mighty Buck! (Read More)
POLAR BEAR BREAK
(An updated post on an old one can be found showing the bottom line is that the current population is at record highs.) While not dealt with well in Prince EA’s video, his presentation shows a computerized Polar Bear[s] walking in the background while intimating extinction or low numbers. Again, he probably learned about this in school, so you cannot really blame him fully. He is the product of indoctrination. However, this just isn’t the case. In fact, there are a record number of Polar Bears. Here is the bottom line:
- For the latest – see: FAILED AMSTRUP POLAR BEAR PREDICTIONS HAVE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNITY IN A PANIC
Again, this throws a monkey wrench into the narrative, and makes the next proposition trues if the counter proposition can be true:
Truth About Stranded Polar Bears Image
FOX NEWS & SEA LEVEL RISE
Want to move on quick over this section? Here is my response to a Starbucks patron (of which I count myself) when they bring up sea rise:
- “I believe in sea rise? Hell, 10,000 years ago it was 350ft lower. That is how the American Indian populated the continent.”
This was interesting because he calls out a news network. Good for him! He is wrong, but I like his style. This section I will deal with sea level rise in general, and then deal with the Bangladesh portion of Prince EA’s claims. The general sea rise refutation of the school-house session can be seen here, but let us look at a graph:
There has been no change (Real Science), nor do we see change in this photo from La Jolla (California) sea levels from 1871 compared to now:
But what interested me was his mentioning Bangladesh specifically… wrapped up in a challenge to Fox News.
Woa Whoa! Throwin’ down the gauntlet. I am going to answer this from various sources, but as you will see, this is another fail on the eco-fascists side. Here is a conservative source first:
Scientific American also takes a wholly different course and shows that current flooding is caused in big part to the Bangladeshi’s themselves:
OF COURSE the magazine then goes on to assert Climate Disruption is still a threat to Bangladesh (towing the line is tough!). But this problem is moot because they gain land from the delta and the flooding is mainly “man-made,” so are the solutions [technology].
CHINA vs SARAH PALIN
WOW, another challenge. Good for you Prince EA! But again, your understanding is wrong.
The Atlantic Monthly has a VERY interesting article I read a few years back. They note that in reality the pollution in China is at our 1980-levels.
Beijing just happens to be, similar to Los Angeles, in a geographical bind. Bloomberg makes this point as well around the same time the Atlantic Monthly does:
But as I have clearly shown… wind and solar energy is no cleaner. And the dream in paeoples heads is truly just that, a dream… I mean when Google caves, you know the end-is-nigh.
And bio-fuels cause, literally, food riots and starvation in poor countries and raise the price of food which hurt the poorer people in the more well off nations: Ethanol is killing children around the world… Democrats! It takes 450lbs of Corn to fill one SUV tank… that is a years worth of food for multiple children, not to mention the rise of corn-based food for the poor worldwide. (See More)
Here is another fail on the part of the doomsayers who speak with a tongue very similar to the eschatology handed us at the most fiery southern Baptist church.
Prince EA is just relying on others work that have been either proven wrong or fraudulant in nature. Here for instance we see some predictions simlar to Prince’s:
“Peter Wadhams, who heads the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge… believes that the Arctic is likely to become ice-free before 2020 and possibly as early as 2015,” (Yale Environment 360 reported in 2012). Yet government data shows that arctic sea ice has increased since then….
Here I will post information from a previous post about Polar Bear population levels, in which I point the following out:
Recent Population Increase Partly Due To Lots of Sea-Ice
Canada (CBC News via the Canadian Coast Guard, 3/2014) [ARCTIC Sea Ice] The Canadian Coast Guard is pleading with merchant ships to plan their voyages well in advance this year as the organization’s icebreaker fleet confronts some of the worst ice conditions on the Atlantic Ocean in decades.
“Plan your voyage and we’ll all get through this,” said Mike Voight, the Atlantic region’s director of programs. “We’ve got a pretty bad or challenging ice year.”
The Canadian Ice Service, an arm of Environment Canada, said there is 10 per cent more ice this year compared to the 30-year average.
“We probably haven’t seen a winter this bad as far as ice for the past 25 years,” said Voight, referring to both the amount and thickness of the ice….
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) Abstract (12/2014) [ARCTIC sea ice] Despite a well-documented ~40% decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent since the late 1970’s, it has been difficult to estimate trends in sea ice volume because thickness observations have been spatially incomplete and temporally sporadic. While numerical models suggest that the decline in extent has been accompanied by a reduction in volume, there is considerable disagreement over the rate at which this has occurred. We present the first complete assessment of trends in northern hemisphere sea ice thickness and volume using 4 years of measurements from CryoSat-2. Between autumn 2010 and spring 2013, there was a 14% and 5% reduction in autumn and spring Arctic sea ice volume, respectively, in keeping with the long-term decline in extent. However, since then there has been a marked 41% and 9% recovery in autumn and spring sea ice volume, respectively, more than offsetting losses of the previous three years. The recovery was driven by the retention of thick ice around north Greenland and Canada during summer 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 6% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred – climatic conditions more typical of the early 1990’s. Such a sharp increase in volume after just one cool summer indicates that the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered.
Talking About Weather (7/2014) [ANTARCTIC sea ice] Antarctic sea ice has hit its second all-time record maximum this week. The new record is 2.112 million square kilometers above normal. Until the weekend just past, the previous record had been 1.840 million square kilometers above normal, a mark hit on December 20, 2007, as I reported here, and also covered in my book.
Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, responded to e-mail questions and also spoke by telephone about the new record sea ice growth in the Southern Hemisphere, indicating that, somewhat counter-intuitively, the sea ice growth was specifically due to global warming.
Let us compare this to Al Gore saying the northern ice-caps will be gone
NewsBusters makes the point another way, in that the “media” is derelict in their duty:
“The West Antarctic ice sheet sits on bedrock which is below sea level. It formed during the ice age but the sea level rose 12,000 years ago and has been chipping away at it ever since. What happens to ice which sits on rock which is below sea level? Hint: it has nothing to do with CO2.” This is a comment from Real Science’s FLASHBACK to 1932 and how the ICe-Sheets were melting then (to the right).
I hate to break it to Prince EA, but that rocket to find other worlds would have to be powered by fossil fuels to break earths gravitational force. And often times the left kills innovation in areas (like nuclear) for ideological reasons. Keeping us dependent on fossil fuels.
You see, all of the above “sounds good,” and grand. But as Thomas Sowell says, liberals — unlike conservatives — do not ask three simple questions:
- compared to what?
- at what cost?
- what hard-evidence do you have?
“Some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq NOW. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous, for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda. It would mean we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” ~ Bush
BUSH on Iraq
GLENN BECK on Iraq
PALIN and ROMNEY on Russia
“I can see Russia from my porch!”
FYI, people travel to this spot to see Russia from Alaska.
Some ladies were very boisterous and making grandiose claims about many thing. one being that [and they even quoted the exact phrase that Snopes quotes below] that SNL soo popularized. When I finally had enough, I turned around, gave an example of the loss of insurance in my own work place: two people losing their insurance… one being able to pay more money (the business owner), and a young man who has lost his insurance because he cannot afford to pay for the higher costs under Obama-Care.
These women were previously going on about all sorts of things, people being entitled to social programs, them willing to pay more in taxes, etc. (overwhelming the young Republican gal with them surely). But I chose my battles well, with a personal story (noted above), and correcting them on a phrase attributed to Sarah Palin.
Yep, that one.
I politely corrected the phrase attributed to Sarah Palin (“I can see Russia from my house”) as not being said by Sarah Palin but by Tina Fey via SNL… but I actually got the Snopes response, which is: “I saw it in a debate.”
Snopes? You ask.
Yeah, that site you got to when friends (conservative or liberal) send you those “pass along” [forwarded] emails that make claims about politicians. Here is the Snopes claim:
- Claim: During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sarah Palin said: “I can see Russia from my house.”
Snopes then rates this as FALSE! Which really goes to show how many a persons make important decisions based on political [or religious for that matter — see bottom] misunderstandings by forgoing any serious introspection. The “bumper sticker mentality” is what I call it. But as Ex-Liberal’s Blog notes, even The Times misquoted the substance of the quote, that is how powerful pop-culture is.
I was honestly trying to help the women not announce their ignorance to the whole bar (although I doubt many know that SNL gave birth to the phrase, exclusively). Again, this woman told me — and I believe she believed it — that she heard it in a debate… to my face.
I didn’t press the issue too much, I just encouraged them to Google it. I then proceeded to hand my card over to the Republican gal at the table, whom, I hope becomes a fan of the blog.
Here is the real quote [BELOW], and she is both a) literally correct, as the photo at the top notes; as well as making b) a metaphorical/figurative statement basically saying (truthfully), “we are close.” But the left see’s things in black-and-white, and makes no room for small talk from their politicians… well… politicians from the side that disagrees with them.
One commentator on the YouTube account of the video below that goes well with the one directly above noted the CONTEXT in which Sarah Palin was talking about the close proximity of the U.S. to Russia:
…Palin was being interviewed and was discussing America’s Alaska based missile defense system, she was speaking of Russia and their proximity to Alaska. As an aside she stated that you van actually see Russia from parts of Alaska…which is true. Saturday Night Live then did a skit, using Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, and stating that she could see Alaska from her front porch. Because of that skit, which was intended to belittle Palin, many uninformed idiots believed that Palin did say that. (Emphasis added)
See a previous post where Palin is spot on on issues the “legacy” media and Democratic politicians railed her for: Democrats Now Admit Sarah Palin Was Right ~ Death Panels
I was trying to stop people in a public place from being LOUDLY “uninformed idiots.” But we all do this, we do not define meanings often times to words we use to refute ideas/ideals. For instance, defining properly the word “hypocrite” when stating “there are hypocrite’s in the church” when people give reasons why they reject “religion” (i.e., Christianity). Or rarely do they ferret out the opposite or logical conclusions of a statement, like, “I do not like organized religion.” The very next question to them should be, do you like disorganized religion? And if yes, which one?” History is rarely accessed to check up on one’s position. Another example of this would be that “the Bible has been changed throughout the years because it has been copied and copied over-and-over again (like the game of telephone).” As one can see from the first 11-and-a-quarter pages of my refutation of a professor at CSUN, and a chapter in my book, this is another false argument made ad-infinitum when I talk to people.
You see, people do not afford themselves the respect and dignity to know “that which they reject.” Instead, they cackle proudly about untruths in a public place creating straw-men arguments to be easily torn down by their own hands which just erected this untruth. This allows them to feel superior that they do not believe in such “dumb” people or ideas… all the while making fools of themselves. It is really sad.
This is yet another “lie” supposedly made by the right. Remember the Lie of the Year where Mitt Romney said Jeep was gonna go to China? Proven right, and the Lie of the Year was pwned! How bout’ Sarah Palin being eviscerated for her “death panel” comments? Again, the Right (Sarah Palin and others) were proven right! How bout the REAL Lie of the Year? Obama was shown to be THE Lie of the Year… and it stuck!
So this is how it looks:
- Republicans warned you couldn’t keep your health care. Dems said you could keep it.
- Republicans warned illegal aliens would be insured thru Obama-care. Dems said NO WAY JOSE!
- Republicans warned about death panels. Dems said we were conspiracy nuts!
- Republicans said the Obama admin was gonna sell (and move) Jeep to China. Dems said, yeah right.
- Republicans said the Obama admin would politicise the Census. Dems said yur crazy!
- Republicans said Putin was gonna take Ukraine. Dems said the 80’s called.
- Republicans said the ACA (Obama-care) would kill jobs. Dems said it would create 400,000 immediately.
Um, when is America gonna wake up?
Take note I wrote (or posted) on this in 2010 and 2012:
- Obama’s “Health Czar,” Donald Berwick, Talks Redistribution ~ Dennis Prager
- Facts Are Stubborn Things – Obama Inserted Berwick By Royal Decree
Recently as well three of the biggest unions have backed away from Obama-Care. Some people hate, hate, hate saying “I told you so,” I rather enjoy it.
Some Democrats are now “Echoing” Sarah Palin’s deep concerns over ‘Death Panels’. The former Governor of Alaska joins FNC’s Eric Bolling on ‘Cashin In’ to discuss this timely issue. Other topics addressed: President Obama referring calling the other scandals such as Benghazi, the IRS, as ‘Fake and Phony’; the handling of the NSA surveillance controversy; and her devout support of ‘Team Rand Paul’ for his libertarian ideals.
Even Obama mentioned the craziness of Death Panels that his own party is acknowledging in Droves. Let’s “Take the Temperature” and see where the naivety of the left leads us, via The World According to Kimba:
….The speech was truly Obama-esque, taking on the role of leader and teacher, author and facilitator, and at times taking the assemblage to the cloakroom for a good old fashioned scolding. “I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.” To those who have sought to make short term political gains…..to those who characterized this initiative with calls of death panels…..those are outright lies.”
While the audience was mainly civilized, it was this last inference that brought about a significant amount of boos from the conservatives in the chamber, but this was not the topper of the evening. Promising that his bill would not mandate guaranteed coverage for illegal aliens, Republican Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, shouted “LIE!” One could only wish the Representative would have missed the speech, opting for a hike along the Appalachian Trail with his counterpart, Governor Sanford…….no such luck.
The bill as outlined by the President, will be a bi-partisan bill, if not due to the Republican votes it garners, but the Republican wishes it contains. No funding for illegal aliens, no funding for abortions, real tort reform, a guarantee of no additional additions to the deficit due to this plan and a renewed free market sense of competition between a not-for-profit public option and the individual insurance companies, especially in regions where there is none….
So Kimba listed some items:
- No funding for illegal aliens
- no funding for abortions
- real tort reform
- a guarantee of no additional additions to the deficit
Okay, let’s work through a few of these:
1) No funding for illegal aliens
2) no funding for abortions
Firstly, National Review, last year, explained what person’s on the left cannot grasp — and that is, Obama-care funds abortions:
It’s official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.
Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.
The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final rule regarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “the final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.
“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”
The ACLJ notes the same.
3) real tort reform
One small newspaper notes the following earlier this year:
As we all are beginning to realize, Obamacare is rapidly becoming a disaster on so many fronts. Even one of its creators, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, recently described it as a “train wreck.”
One serious flaw in its enactment is the total lack of consideration of tort reform. Every physician, whether he or she will admit it, has practiced some form of defensive medicine, thereby increasing the cost of medical care. Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty, and trial lawyers (devout Obama supporters) will be rewarded handsomely, perhaps intentionally, when medical errors are perceived…
A larger paper chimes in, the Wall Street Journal:
This is an absurd position, in that the law makes no provision for tort reform.
According to Patients for Fair Compensation, doctors spend more than $650 billion a year practicing “defensive medicine,” ordering unnecessary tests and procedures in the interest of warding off plaintiff attorneys.
Without concomitant tort reform, there will never be meaningful health-care reform, and it is absurd to ask doctors to speak well of the law to their patients.
~ Robert N. Levin, M.D.
And prior to the latest election, the Huffington Post points out that tort reform is not in Obama-Care:
Looks like Obamacare is not what the doctor ordered.
More than half of physicians say they’ll vote for Mitt Romney come November 6th compared to just 36 percent for Obama, according to a recent survey by medical staffing firm Jackson and Cokey. In fact, 15 percent of survey respondents said they’ll be switching to the Republican camp this election, with most citing the Affordable Care Act as the reason.
The majority of the 3,660 doctors polled in the survey said they also are in favor of repealing and replacing Obama’s signature piece of legislation because it failed to address tort reform, an issue relating regulations surrounding malpractice lawsuits.
It’s not just doctors that aren’t pleased with Obamacare, however. Other critics include the food service industry, which fears the law may adversely affect restaurants’ ability to maintain slim profit margins since it requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide affordable health insurance. In August, Papa John’s pizza CEO John Schnatter said that at least some of those extra costs would be passed on to the customer….
4) a guarantee of no additional additions to the deficit
Really!? Do I have to show what every paper and news organization and health experts has said? Laughable!
Watch the entire Sean Hannity segment HERE.
People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates. We are not exercising that peace through strength that can only be brought to you courtesy of the red, white and blue, that only a strengthened US military can do.